Super Fast Navy Sub In Development

[dioditto]

Thats a great way to demonstrate maturity. Fortunately for you I don't need to establish my credibility as I work in an acoustic and signature management climate - so I do have a reasonable idea of what has and has not been achieved.

If you don't like the answers, then tough. Arguing in circles to cement your position is more indicative of the weakness of your argument than anything else.

The fact that you still don't understand that not all weaps technologies are in the public domain is somewhat illuminating.

At the 2004 UDT Conf over 17 discrete active systems were reviewed - only 2 were in the public domain. By your logic 15 of them are vaporware as you don't see any Internet evidence. By your debating style, the fact that white paper and green papers were issued to delegates doesn't count as they're not in the public domain(?) - so therefore aren't valid as they're not up for public chatter

Congratulations - you're in an unimpeachable position of subject authority.

I am not the one demonstrating immaturity here. I seem to remember you started this - you snapped at my comment for no reason at all.


And ofcourse, your work for the super-secret all knowing weapons lab that you can't tell us. You put yourself into this unimpeachable position of subject matter. Just think about it mate, How is ANYONE going to be able meaningfully discuss with you the subject matter of super cativation when you claimed of many "SUPER SECRET" projects that you cannot tell us that are superior to any of russian's effort.

Like Icelord had said, you could very well made this all up, and there is no way for any of us to know if it's true or not.

This is a public forum, and you should know that. You dont' bring to the table something you cannot possibly/reasonably shown to the general public. I didn't say it doesn't exist, but since THIS IS THE PUBLIC FORUM, when you start to compare something, show us something that's concrete and exist, if you can't, SAVE IT.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I am merely pointing out the flaw in your arguments, as you seem to know "EVERYTHING" from your onesided perspective. And you have not answer my question, do you work for the Russian? If not, why the hell can you assume one is superior than others? It is dangerous to totally underestimate your potential enemy.

I don't know everything and I'm not presumptious enough to assume that I do - but I'm certainly more than comfortable with my own assessment based on what I do know and what can be said in the public domain. In the end, thats the best that any of us can do.

You believe what you want - you're entitled to that. What is just as pertinent is that there are people in here who sometimes have the advantage of technical privilege due to their experience. Whether thats viable as partial supporting evidence on my assessment and opinion from your perspective is completely irrelevant.

To be blunt, I don't actually give a ratz whether you agree with me or not. So, its completely irrelevant to me whether you appreciate that perspective or not. I'm not interested in "converting the choir" - and I also have no need to validate completely anything I say just because you have a contrarian perspective or opinion.

As far as you're concerned the Russians are the main game in cavitating weapons technology. So be it.

btw Check yr PM.

 

[gf0012-aust]

And ofcourse, your work for the super-secret all knowing weapons lab that you can't tell us. You put yourself into this unimpeachable position of subject matter. Just think about it mate, How is ANYONE going to be able meaningfully discuss with you the subject matter of super cativation when you claimed of many "SUPER SECRET" projects that you cannot tell us that are superior to any of russian's effort.

Like Icelord had said, you could very well made this all up, and there is no way for any of us to know if it's true or not.

This is a public forum, and you should know that. You dont' bring to the table something you cannot possibly/reasonably shown to the general public. I didn't say it doesn't exist, but since THIS IS THE PUBLIC FORUM, when you start to compare something, show us something that's concrete and exist, if you can't, SAVE IT.

Actually I've never said anything about working for a "super secret" entity.

As far as my work on the Ballistics projects - well, my name was in the original prospectus, my name was listed as the contact point in the Defence Industry handbook for 2000-2001.

My status as a Weapons Contracter was listed on the SMS web site right up until I left to form my own company.

So - maybe you should grow up a little and SAVE IT(??) yourself. I can actually prove my credentials to you fairly easily, so send me a PM and I'll fill you in. My user name is actually part of my old Task Force ID number.

 

[dioditto]

I don't know everything and I'm not presumptious enough to assume that I do - but I'm certainly more than comfortable with my own assessment based on what I do know and what can be said in the public domain. In the end, thats the best that any of us can do.

You believe what you want - you're entitled to that. What is just as pertinent is that there are people in here who sometimes have the advantage of technical privilege due to their experience. Whether thats viable as partial supporting evidence on my assessment and opinion from your perspective is completely irrelevant.

To be blunt, I don't actually give a ratz whether you agree with me or not. So, its completely irrelevant to me whether you appreciate that perspective or not. I'm not interested in "converting the choir" - and I also have no need to validate completely anything I say just because you have a contrarian perspective or opinion.

As far as you're concerned the Russians are the main game in cavitating weapons technology. So be it.

btw Check yr PM.

The Russians...this is what's out on the sun. I do not discredit what's not out, but since this is a public forum (for the 3rd time) we are discussing things that are atleast acknowledge in the pubilc. I get a feeling you are breaking the forum rule...isn't the rule said.. "quote your source"? And since you can't, I don't know what you are talking about here.

And I am not trying to convert anyone, I am merely pointing out you are stepping out of the line that yourself have drawn.

 

[dioditto]

Actually I've never said anything about working for a "super secret" entity.

As far as my work on the Ballistics projects - well, my name was in the original prospectus, my name was listed as the contact point in the Defence Industry handbook for 2000-2001.

My status as a Weapons Contracter was listed on the SMS web site right up until I left to form my own company.

So - maybe you should grow up a little and SAVE IT(??) yourself. I can actually prove my credentials to you fairly easily, so send me a PM and I'll fill you in. My user name is actually part of my old Task Force ID number.

That doesn't say anything. You maybe working for some defense tech company, but does that mean the project exist? Would you.. like to drive me to your company headqarter and give me a personal demonstration (and anyone else in the forum) of what you speak of?

Like Icelord had said, you could have very well have made it all up. Or not. We do not know. Unless there are ways to cross referencing your claims publicly, how is anyone going to believe what you said?

 

[gf0012-aust]

And I am not trying to convert anyone, I am merely pointing out you are stepping out of the line that yourself have drawn.

Actually, your responses are personal. And don't give me guff about concern for forum protocol. You just don't like this topic. If you were that concerned about hearsay debate then you'd be busy sending us "reported posts" - as there are buckets of them that fall out of the spirit of participation.

Similarly there are people in here who I don't challenge as I respect their authority of knowledge as the history of their debate denotes topic competency. It is a standard courtesy in most forums. I do not extend that courtesy to others who have made no attempt to read and absorb what has been said - and have made no attempt to appreciate the tone, rigour and vigour in which its offered.

If you want to continue this discussion then you can PM me or send me an email.

If you disagree with that then complain to Web.

 

[gf0012-aust]

That doesn't say anything. You maybe working for some defense tech company, but does that mean the project exist? Would you.. like to drive me to your company headqarter and give me a personal demonstration (and anyone else in the forum) of what you speak of?

Seriously, how old are you?

But, you apply for and pay for the relevant clearances (because it is a "user pay" application) and get them issued, then I can make you happy.

This is my last on this - and I've been more than patient with you. Either PM me or I will delete the OT comments.

No doubt you'll accuse me of bias - but sooner or later the Mod role has to kick in - and no one is a protected species in here.

 

[dioditto]

Actually, your responses are personal. And don't give me guff about concern for forum protocol. You just don't like this topic. If you were that concerned about hearsay debate then you'd be busy sending us "reported posts" - as there are buckets of them that fall out of the spirit of participation.

Similarly there are people in here who I don't challenge as I respect their authority of knowledge as the history of their debate denotes topic competency. It is a standard courtesy in most forums. I do not extend that courtesy to others who have made no attempt to read and absorb what has been said - and have made no attempt to appreciate the tone, rigour and vigour in which its offered.

If you want to continue this discussion then you can PM me or send me an email.

If you disagree with that then complain to Web.

I respond to the thread that I read, that I found interesting. I do not have all day to read through all the posts in the forum. I am not a professional forum moderator. It just happened this is an interesting thread at the start, and I think I responded reasonably by quoting my reference. And you surprised me by been personal in your unreasonable response.

Seriously, how old are you?

But, you apply for and pay for the relevant clearances (because it is a "user pay" application) and get them issued, then I can make you happy.

This is my last on this - and I've been more than patient with you. Either PM me or I will delete the OT comments.

No doubt you'll accuse me of bias - but sooner or later the Mod role has to kick in - and no one is a protected species in here.

I am merely telling you how absurd it is. Since you cannot show me what is there to say? If someone was to tell you he works for the Tibetan super cavitation submarine technology, and yet it's secret, and it can't be found on internet or any literature references, and it is superior than anything westerner has to offer... ? How is it going to make people think? Put yourself in my shoe.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I respond to the thread that I read, that I found interesting. I do not have all day to read through all the posts in the forum. I am not a professional forum moderator. It just happened this is an interesting thread at the start, and I think I responded reasonably by quoting my reference. And you surprised me by been personal in your unreasonable response.

As per my last. This is the last off topic response I'll accept. Continue to PM me if you want to discuss issues of forum protocol or points of disagreement.

Any future OT replies will be deleted and or edited

 

[dioditto]

OT response deleted

 

[icelord]

Like Icelord had said, you could have very well have made it all up. Or not. We do not know. Unless there are ways to cross referencing your claims publicly, how is anyone going to believe what you said?

I was meaning the sources on the internet, but still, in some way he has a point, but he misses the mark, why the hell would GF need to lie? I'm pretty sure hes pointed out his care factor, now, anyone else wanting to get back to topic?

 

[Todjaeger]

Uses for super cavitation technology

Ok, this might be slightly off topic, since it isn't related directly to subs but instead to super cavitation technology. Can someone please list some of the potential uses for super cavitating tech? As someone (GF?) had written earlier, underwater speed = noise = assisted large leak

The two things that come to mind are torpedoes and as an alternate for waterjets in an HSV.

Without getting into classified projects where much of the cool work is being done, are there other uses of such tech? I mean in terms of where the speed gained out weighs the increase in acoustic signature.

Also, the British Spearfish torpedoe is the fastest heavyweight torp I'm aware of, does it make use of super cavitation, and are there any other torps in service that are as fast or faster?

 

[swerve]

I would not be too shure.

Indeed. Remember the F-117. It was a secret even from most US allies (I think only the UK was told, & not for a few years) until the Germans showed the Lampyridae to the USAF, & the Americans realised the technology had been independently duplicated.

 

[icelord]

"independant" uhuh, sure they may have looked at the specs from an inside source, no secret allies check on each others projects from time to time, hell the french mastered the art.

 

[LancerMc]

Well I am glad to see so many people are interested in the topic I posted for discussion. Though I would hope everyone tone down the arguments. I am sure people would be inclined to post more if their weren't so many arguments. Respect the point of view of other posters, especially the Defense Professionals, because they know what their talking about. In my case I have spent much of my life reading military history, and I have known a number of Defense Professionals who were impressed with my knowledge, I still respect that they know all more then me because they access to information I don't.

Back on to topic. Military systems can be developed and deployed in complete secrecy. The F-117, U-2, and A-12 (SR-71) were all developed in near secrecy. The F-117 was even deployed during the Panama Incident, but only the U.S. military knew that. The U.S. may have such supercavitation weapons, though during this period of little threat from submarines, they felt there is little need to deploy such a system. Keep it secret so when you actually have to use it, it’s a complete surprise to your enemies. The Air Force recently had a $9 Billion black hole in their budget, and I am sure the Navy has a similar one to develop secret weapons.

 

[Galrahn]

"independant" uhuh, sure they may have looked at the specs from an inside source, no secret allies check on each others projects from time to time, hell the french mastered the art.

Actually the French have been in super cavitation for awhile, but that wasn't really your point was it.

I have had an oppertunity to debate gf0012-aust for well over a year now. I thought I was pretty close to the tip of the spear regarding many new technologies only to realize he is almost always the sharper point on any sub related discussion.

After reading through this thread, everything he says sounds about right to me, but then again, this is only my second post on this specific forum so whatever.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have had an oppertunity to debate gf0012-aust for well over a year now. I thought I was pretty close to the tip of the spear regarding many new technologies only to realize he is almost always the sharper point on any sub related discussion.

After reading through this thread, everything he says sounds about right to me, but then again, this is only my second post on this specific forum so whatever.

mate, good to see you in here, I could do with some extra technical input now and then.

 

[Ths]

Wellcome Galrahn!

I must say I get the sneaking feeling about this supercavitation information in the public domain: They are the laboratory freaks.

A laboratory freak is something with very strange and some desirable properties; but on closer investigation they cannot live up to the hopes held - in fact it is pretty useless.