backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 86 comment(s) - last by Grast.. on Sep 4 at 5:20 PM

The controversial image in question  (Source: Dan Twohig/Microsoft Virtual Earth)
The image of a sensitive submarine propeller was recently made available to the world

Remember when a high-tech Chinese nuclear ballistic missile submarine was captured with global satellite imagery?  The United States now understands what China felt like after the incident just one month ago...

Dan Twohig simply wanted to find a house closer to his job, but he accidentally found something much more interesting.  While using Microsoft Virtual Earth to look for houses on one side of the Puget Sound, Twohig discovered an Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) that was being worked in an a dry dock.  The Bangor, Wash. dry dock was photographed by Pictometry International Corporation, a company specializing in aerial photographs.

The Marine Corps Times refused to publish the image of the submarine -- but that didn't stop hundreds of bloggers from soon discovering the image on Google Earth and Microsoft Live Search.

"Yes, that is an Ohio-class submarine, either an SSBN or SSGN, in dry dock in the Pacific Northwest at the intermediate maintenance facility on the Naval Submarine Base Kitsap-Bangor," said Cmdr. Chris Loundermon, submarine force public affairs officer.

The U.S. Navy traditionally works hard to keep images like this from the public, but the photo clearly shows what they don't want the world to see.

Does it really matter the image was published?  Even though there likely is no real right or wrong answer, the debate continues over sensitive images freely available to everyone with an Internet connection.  Expect to hear another round of debate regarding the type of images that can be seen through such programs.  

Should it be allowed?  Should restrictions be put in place?  Regardless, Microsoft maintains the company fully complies with "U.S. laws governing the acquisition and publishing of aerial imagery."

As more sensitive locations - military technology being a good example - are photographed, the debate will only continue to grow.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sign of the Times
By rsmech on 8/27/2007 9:48:57 AM , Rating: 3
I have my own personal opinion as to where this photo would appear. But my observation is that something has changed as far as national pride or even patriotism goes.

If this were during the time of either of the world wars or anytime between or shortly after the public would never have seen such things. It's not a conspiracy it's just that it serves no public benefit. The only use could be for a foreign source to examine something they may or may not have seen. What my observation is is that technology is erasing national boarders & national identities advancing the ideas of a world of one, a one world gov't. The only question is whether you believe in this concept. If so, it's coming. If not, don't accept the advances of it.

I would expect to see this on about any site not based in the U.S. but if national pride or patriotism were there it wouldn't be on a U.S. based company. I'm not trying to question your patriotism, it's just that we have different definitions of patriotism. Would you have seen this in any newspapers pre-1650's? What would happen if you were to personally take photos & sell them to a foreign country? Does the content of the photos make a difference or the intent (making money)? If the content is too sensitive to sell why is it not too sensitive to give away?




RE: Sign of the Times
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/27/2007 10:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
Want to get a reality check?

CNN, BBC, NYT, take your pick. The stories are constantly run that berate whichever party is in office. Clinton was badgered for Monica, and the lack of action on Saddam back when he was jerking our chain. Bush gets it for taking out Saddam and invading both Afganistan and Iraq. Blair gets it for siding with Bush. The french president gets it for previously being too much of a wimp, and the new one for being "pro american".

Europe and the U.S. have a real problem, and that problem is lack of national pride. We are more than happy to give interviews to wanted crminals on their own terms.
(Go figure it would be CNN, they really are an embarassment these days) http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/26/btsc.per...

No, until something happens that threatens the Americans here at home again this will continue to happen. Maybe in another 15 years when Russia and China might be up to giving the U.S. some real competition to think about that we will stop trying to sabotage ourselves and take some pride in our country.


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 10:57:45 AM , Rating: 5
Without taking sides in the issue, I have to point out there's a vast difference between taking a politician to task, and showing photographs of secret technology that could potentially put our nation at risk. Its not inconceivable that this picture will allow other nations to more easily detect our submarines...or, alternately, for them to better build ballistic missile subs stealthy enough to approach our own borders.


RE: Sign of the Times
By Kuroyama on 8/27/2007 11:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
And I suppose that Russian and/or Chinese spy satellites have never taken a picture of a US submarine in dry dock? They most certainly have, and most certainly at much higher resolutions than what the Dailytech picture shows. Unless, that is, the naval yard covers up the submarine every time a foreign spy satellite will be passing overhead, but if they were going to that much trouble then they'd probably put a permanent structure over this in the first place.

On the other hand, if Dailytech were posting a 10 megapixel close-up of the propeller then it might be something to talk about (although again would probably not be news to spy services).


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 11:18:55 AM , Rating: 5
> "And I suppose that Russian and/or Chinese spy satellites have never taken a picture of a US submarine in dry dock?"

Your logic is identical to the man who, upon finding a wallet full of cash on the ground, reasons that if he doesn't pocket it, someone else will. That's Point 1-- if its wrong, its wrong period, regardless of whether or not anyone else has done it.

Point 2. The Russians and the Chinese are not the only other two nations in the world. Many nations don't have spy satellites. Do you really want North Korea to be able to build a sub capable of putting nuclear missiles a few miles off the NYC harbor?

Point 3. Spy satellites follow known paths, and their observation windows are known in advance. Just because the Chinese has satellites does *not* mean all our secrets are exposed to them. It could very well be that the propeller of this sub was always kept covered whenever a Chinese satellite was overhead.

Point 4. The belief that a low-res version of a photograph is worthless is fallacious. A little edge-tracing, and the above snapshot will tell an expert in hydrodynamics nearly everything about the propeller design-- blade number, angle, length, etc. Some calculation of albedo variance will even give you the blade pitches.


RE: Sign of the Times
By jacarte8 on 8/27/2007 11:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong... if this were particularly sensitive information, the Navy would make the contractor COVER the ship. Do you think no oversight agencies have ever thought about ships in dry dock?


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 11:31:53 AM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously trying to base a logical argument on the premise that it's impossible for the government to ever make a mistake?


RE: Sign of the Times
By jacarte8 on 8/27/2007 11:41:36 AM , Rating: 1
No but having worked in the defense industry, it's hard for me to imagine that if this were a big deal, there would be no tarp over the ship to protect from satellites.

It's certainly possible, just unlikely. I'm sure we'll see in coming days if this is a mistake on the part of the shipyard, the Navy, oversight, or a non-issue.


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 12:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Unlikely? Yes, but far from impossible. But I doubt we'll learn the truth of the matter. From the Navy's perspective, the admission that this was a damaging revelation would be itself damaging. A formal admission would be like their drawing a big arrow on the photo with the caption, "TOP SECRET INFO HERE!"

They'll either stay silent on the matter, or make a statement to the effect that nothing sensitive was revealed.


RE: Sign of the Times
By jacarte8 on 8/28/2007 3:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
The real point is that even if this were a security breach, it was not due to the press... it was due to the propeller being exposed in the first place.


RE: Sign of the Times
By Grast on 9/4/2007 5:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
Masher,

As an Ex-Navy man which was stationed on the USS Georgia for 5 years, this type of issue DOES NOT happen. Remember, the mens lives are at stake if sensitive information about the submarine are released. I can guarantee you. An Adimeral or above set down a directive that covering of the ships screw was no longer required. Otherwise, the ships crew would have done it with or without orders and ship yard assistance.

This was done on purpose. Sub crew take their safety very seriously.

Later...


RE: Sign of the Times
By mars777 on 8/27/2007 12:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you seriously trying to base a logical argument on the premise that it's impossible for the government to ever make a mistake?


I'll respond in your own way (you personal opinion is: if something is wrong it's wrong no matter what.):

<sarcastic joke on hypocritical radical opinion>

They made a mistake and no matter what they must be punished. By publishing the picture in every news site on the internet.

Well they made a mistake and that was a wrong thing. So no matter what (even national security) they must be punished for making that mistake.

</sarcastic joke on hypocritical radical opinion>

Lets get serious and become aware that this is no big deal.
Russians couldn't care less for this thing since the cold was was a big joke from the start. The only ones who we should watch out are Chinese but then again: they had this picture before it was even sighted on the internet.

Too much patriotism can only make you enjoy your life less and support wars in general.


RE: Sign of the Times
By Ringold on 8/27/2007 3:35:26 PM , Rating: 3
Patriotism doesn't make life more or less enjoyable. Worrying about your country does -- but how can that be faulted?

We could all stick our heads in the sand, sure. Then we'd be a giant sovereign UN; ineffectual, weak, and insecure. Not to mention susceptible to radical politicians preying on our lack of attentiveness, pushing parties left or right.

Eternal vigilance is requires by at least SOME patriots, and don't think I need to define eternal. For a democracy, anyway. The Russians, on the other hand, seem basically content with dictatorship, so long as they continue to prosper.


RE: Sign of the Times
By Kuroyama on 8/27/2007 3:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
Patriotism and democracy do not necessarily go together. Look how many non-democracies use patriotism and/or national security to justify terrible actions (including your friends China and Russia). Likewise, self-censorship for the sake of a nebulous concept like patriotism can be used as a justification for all kinds of things. Such concepts should only be used to restrict actions when it is absolutely clear that something essential is being lost by revealing said information, and not as a catch-all as in Cheney's infamous "Top Secret" stamp, or the all too common suggestions that objecting to the war in Iraq is somehow non-patriotic (certainly you find it quite patriotic to regularly ridicule the government's actions).


RE: Sign of the Times
By Ringold on 8/27/2007 4:30:11 PM , Rating: 2
You basically state that the world and local politics are complicated, and in that I wont disagree.

I will say though that's it's necessary for American's to be patriotic in so far as they look after their own needs above all other peoples needs. We pay taxes, and others spill sweat and blood, to defend our borders and protect us in general terms, so it only makes sense we look after ourselves first and act collectively.

Beyond that, America is perhaps unique (or was until part of the free world copied us) in that just so long as we follow the principles upon which we were founded and those expressed by those founding fathers then we can mountains of patriotism without any risk at all of the tyranny of which you hint at. For example.. the political problems over in Turkey as of late would/should never be replicated here.

We were, you may recall, the first country ever in history to hold an election while mired in a war as devastating as the Civil War. Asides from those states which chose not to participate (I'll leave you guessing) it was even fair! We've also got, as I've noted at length before, a long history of unconstitutional laws (or simply those that grind against the principle of free and open government) during times of duress, only to throw them out when the trouble is past. I see very, very little risk in having too much patriotism in America.

I'm not sure why Iraq got brought up, but it's not particularly unpatriotic to object to the war. To treat the troops the way America did after Vietnam, very much so, but to whine about Iraq.. Well, that Democrat in the House essentially stated that the Democratic Party is heavily invested in defeat in Iraq (after he said this the amount of back-pedalling by the candidates was amazing), so I therefore wouldn't mind if the idiot was shot, but to have honest debate about Iraq, no, I don't think anybody would really say it's unpatriotic.


RE: Sign of the Times
By A5un on 8/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sign of the Times
By rdeegvainl on 8/28/2007 5:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
That was what he was saying, as Americans we need to look after America. I think that is one of the best definitions of patriotism. Also we need to look at America first. The addage of "getting the stick out of your own eye before going after the speck in another" rings true here. This isn't arrogance, not in the least. The only reason to have a government, to have a military and social responsibility is to look after the citizens and keep them safe and prosperous. When this is done, then we look to help others. If your people are hungry you don't give your food to other just because they are hungrier, that would lead to even more starvation and more problems. I'm not saying ignore them altogether, but if your not in a situation to take care of your people AND help, then don't try to do both.


RE: Sign of the Times
By rsmech on 8/27/2007 12:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
One point that has changed is now we have to protect our secrets from the prying eyes of our own citizens as well. Maybe we seen stuff in the past & talked about it to our friends, but now we post it for the world. Our citizens are now a tool for other nations spy networks.


RE: Sign of the Times
By Kuroyama on 8/27/2007 11:43:19 AM , Rating: 1
I'll grant you that it may be that the propeller alone was covered when spy satellites passed overhead, and although I suspect you're overstating the low-res issue here perhaps I'm wrong.

However, only an exceptionally naive person believes that "wrong is wrong period", and you certainly don't fit that bill. In your poor analogy you can turn in the wallet to the police, but more generally I'm glad to know that you never drank alcohol before the age of 21, never drove over the speed limit, never sped towards a yellow light when you knew you wouldn't make it on time, and never did any of a host of wrong things that 99.9% of the population does. Even if so, I doubt that more than a few of the sailors who would hypothetically be effected by this could make the same claim. The "wrong is wrong" naivete also fails when applied to many conservative claims to fame, such as selling weapons to Iran (via Iran-Contra), supporting Middle Eastern dictators (while "spreading democracy and freedom" no less), etc. etc.

Your North Korea comment is laughable as there are many more obstacles in their building an undetectable submarine capable of reaching NYC than just the propeller.


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 12:10:41 PM , Rating: 1
> "I'm glad to know that you never drank alcohol before the age of 21, never drove over the speed limit, never sped towards a yellow light..."

I'm not following your logic here. Because I may have myself broken traffic laws, I should close my eyes to potential national security risks? Or is it that you think that underage drinking and speeding just aren't "wrong" at all? Surely you can recognize there's a difference in degree between running a yellow light and selling state secrets?

> there are many more obstacles in their building an undetectable submarine capable of reaching NYC than just the propeller"

Certainally. But by your logic, if there were 100 obstacles to North Korea doing that, each of the 100 people who helped them solve one of those problems could sleep guilt-free at night. After all, they didn't give up the WHOLE show, right?

The logic is even more flawed when you realize that, whether or not North Korea ever "parks a nuclear sub off the coast of NYC", there are real and valid reasons for such nations to not possess stealth submarine technology. Perhaps its Seoul instead of NYC-- a far easier target with a stealth sub. Perhaps they never use them at all...but the sheer knowledge they have the capability forces us to make damaging concessions in other areas.

Geopolitique is a complicated game. When you give rogue nations additional capabilities, its never a good thing.


RE: Sign of the Times
By mars777 on 8/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 12:25:55 PM , Rating: 3
> "As long as we look at people in this way we will have enemies..."

So, if we force ourselves to not "see" any enemies, we won't have any? A man called Neville Chamberlain had the same idea once. You might want to look up his history sometime.


RE: Sign of the Times
By mars777 on 8/27/2007 12:47:24 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say that we should sell sensitive property to potential enemies.

What i wanted to point out is that we shouldn't post our bad/ill feelings on public forums because when a Chinese comes here and reads your posts, how can he judge a nation?

It would be much better to preach humanity and friendship to the world, even in a hypocritical way. Making weapons is a must, but saying Chinese and Russians are enemies is not a must it's a MUST NOT.

The feelings can't change in a day or two, but if you fool yourself for generations that we are all friends and manage to teach that to the world, the barrier can be broken.

Not always hypocrisy is BAD, as not is doing a wrong thing always wrong.

My opinion is that you have done more harm to national security than the one who published those picture.


RE: Sign of the Times
By Ringold on 8/27/2007 3:49:51 PM , Rating: 2
So, massive hypocritical propaganda so that, eventually, a generation is born, lives, and dies that honestly believes everyone in the world is their brother? Meanwhile, just to be safe, the government maintains arms -- just in case we're not all brotherly.

That seems, to me, to go against the very principle of freedom. Honesty, and open information as to who we like and dislike and why, seems a much better way to go than saying lies with a smile on our face, or giving big hugs while we have daggers drawn.

And if a Chinese person does come here and read a bunch of posts, so what? Eventually he/she would learn that we're a huge mutually beneficial trade partner, feel almost no animosity towards him/her personally due just to national origin, and merely have security concerns regarding the government he/she did not elect to rule over him. In fact, if he happens to know someone at an Intel fab and could get us some Penryn chips on the sly, he'd be our best friend. :P


RE: Sign of the Times
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/28/2007 8:47:25 AM , Rating: 2
Intel only manufactures 90nm chipsets over in China, they do not manufacture anything state of the art. Too much risk for the Chinese to copycat them.


RE: Sign of the Times
By TomZ on 8/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sign of the Times
By rsmech on 8/27/2007 12:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't this the pre 9-11 mentality, I thought we were past that?


RE: Sign of the Times
By mars777 on 8/27/2007 12:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
1. I'm not an US citizen
2. 9-11 brought something like 5k victims
3. Where i live we had a real war, victims ranging up to 150k
4. My country has about 4M of people vs the astronomic number of people in the USA.
5. My country is in better relation now with the attacking country than the USA with a country that has never attacked them like the Chinese.

...

If the US (with it's current gov mentality) didn't have a so great army potential, somebody (not me - I'm peaceful) would have attacked you. It's because of your gov attitude.

Two things to point out on about how a war (not civil) gets started:

1. War because of lust / money
2. War because of hate based on (... choose by yourself...)

Capitalistic nations go to war mainly because of 1.
Communist nations go to war mainly because of 2.

We shouldn't feed the 2.
(when i say WE i mean we as citizens of the world)


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 1:12:48 PM , Rating: 3
> "Where i live we had a real war, victims ranging up to 150k"

Mmm..Austria, perhaps? Or Finland? In either case, you might want to consider why today you have such peaceful relations with the nation that attacked you. It wasn't an accident of history.

Regardless of your beliefs, nations are attacked far more often for not having a military (or not enough of one) than they are for having too much of one. Did Germany invade Poland because it feared its large military? Likewise, did Iraq invade Kuwait for the same reasons?

> "Communist nations go to war mainly because of 2."

Offhand, I can quickly name many counterexamples that disprove this, such as the Soviet Union's actions in Hungary and Afghanistan, or the Chinese occcupation of Tibet.


RE: Sign of the Times
By omnicronx on 8/27/2007 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regardless of your beliefs, nations are attacked far more often for not having a military (or not enough of one) than they are for having too much of one.
Thats funny, then why do Britain and the U.S have the two worst attacks world over in recent memory against them. You don't see anyone going after Canada or Australia, Finland etc, do you? All of which have a pretty weak military by most peoples standards.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but it can swing both ways, and if i had to choose between the better of two evils, i would side with mars on this one..

Theres a difference between a country getting attacked in an unstable part of the world versus say Europe or north America, historically the western nations that have been more aggressive militarily are the ones that have been attacked.. (and yes i mainly speak of terrorist attacks)


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 2:39:25 PM , Rating: 4
> "You don't see anyone going after Canada or Australia, Finland etc, do you?"

Just a very, very, few counterexamples:

2002- bomb detonated in Bali, 202 killed. Spot was chosen due to the high number of Australian tourists which frequented it.

2004 - Syrian Police kill 4 bombers attempting to attack the Canadian embassy.

2005 - Terrorist cell in Sydney, Australia planning a "major gas attack" broken up after arrest of 17 of its members. Ringleader an 'associate' of bin Laden.

2006 - Toronto police arrest several members of a terrorist cell after they acquirred 3 tons of explosives, with plans to attack targets in Ontario.

> "and yes i mainly speak of terrorist attacks"

Why limit it to terrorist attacks? As frightening as they are, they are nothing compared to the effects of a full-scale assault by the armed forces of another nation. My original post dealt primarily with that point.


RE: Sign of the Times
By omnicronx on 8/27/2007 2:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
I just chose terrorist attacks as this is the main threat to pretty much any country. I agree with you with the full-scale assault side though, The more powerful your military is the less chance of an invasion, and for countries like Canada, Finland etc like i named before, they would be protected by a larger military power if anything were to ever arise.. (ex: canada protected by USA)

But the way i see it with terrorist attacks, the countries that have the most military powers also open themselves up to more terrorist attacks. The trend seems to be the more power you have, the more attention you receive.

So its really a trade off, the countries that stay less involved and thus less protected are less susceptible to terrorist attacks, yet the countries with prominent military powers are.


RE: Sign of the Times
By jacarte8 on 8/28/2007 3:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Yes, being a powerful military will cause terrorism in our nation (and our allies for that matter), however it stops the bigger threat of real countries attacking.

Look what being nice brought Belgium and France circa 1939...


RE: Sign of the Times
By Kuroyama on 8/27/2007 12:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you give rogue nations additional capabilities, its never a good thing.

I guess this is our main difference, as I doubt that the Dailytech picture is giving anyone any additional capabilities. Anyone who wants the picture will find it easily enough even if not on DT, and even if DT didn't put up this blog. It is neither here nor there, but if DT was one of the few with access to the picture then they could have done without the frivolous picture of the real propeller and blurred it or done something cute like editing in a flower.

PS. We both seem to be having trouble coming up with effective analogies today.


RE: Sign of the Times
By 91TTZ on 8/27/2007 1:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's Point 1-- if its wrong, its wrong period, regardless of whether or not anyone else has done it.

There is nothing wrong with taking pictures of something that is out in the open. They have covered drydocks for housing vessels which they really want to keep secret.

Point 2. The Russians and the Chinese are not the only other two nations in the world. Many nations don't have spy satellites. Do you really want North Korea to be able to build a sub capable of putting nuclear missiles a few miles off the NYC harbor

This has nothing at all to do with propellers. Any country that possesses a nuclear missile sub could hit the US with those missiles, and they do not even need to leave their port. The missiles have such range that they'll reach us from nearly anywhere- no need to sneak up to the US shore.


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 2:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "Any country that possesses a nuclear missile sub could hit the US with those missiles, and they do not even need to leave their port"

You're not seeing the bigger picture. First of all, even when the above is true, the closer a sub is to its target, the less warning the target receives, and the lower the chance any ABM defense has to work.

Second of all, you're presupposing that only the US mainland is at risk, and that only from nuclear missiles. US forces are based all over the world, and at risk from attack by conventional sub-launched missles, as well as nuclear ones. Do you think Iranian subs operating in the Persian Gulf pose no potential risk to US warships there? What about US forces in South Korea, where North Korean subs can approach within 100 miles? What about other nations using this photograph to develop sonar profiles of Ohio-class subs, allowing them to better detect us?

> "There is nothing wrong with taking pictures of something that is out in the open"

There's nothing illegal in it surely. But I think the OP was trying to make the point that there's a larger moral issue here. What if you stumbled across a briefcase of federal documents detailing how to easily enrich uranium and build an atomic weapon? What if the US had forgotten to stamp them all top secret? It might be legal for you to disseminate that information, but would it be ethical?


RE: Sign of the Times
By jacarte8 on 8/28/2007 3:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It might be legal for you to disseminate that information, but would it be ethical?

This brings about the question of whether anyone who published the picture knowingly sacrificed national security. It's very dicey to say what is a national secret and what is not, and it takes years and years of training to know that, for even a very specific item. If I found a briefcase outlining the entire plans to the atom bomb, sure I'd know this is sensitive. But what if I found a diagram of one piece of casing which wasn't labeled? Or what about a picture of Fat Boy in 1955 (10 years after its inception).


RE: Sign of the Times
By 91TTZ on 8/28/2007 8:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
Building a gun-type atomic bomb is relatively easy (for anyone with the capability to enrich uranium). During the manhattan project, the first bomb type ever tested was a more complicated implosion device (Trinity). Most of the development was for this type of device. They felt no need to test the gun-type bombs because they already knew they would work.

The hard part is actually enriching the uranium. That's extremely difficult and takes a lot of infrastructure. Implosion type devices are much more efficient than gun type devices, and use easier to obtain plutonium, but are much more difficult to design.


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 9:44:16 PM , Rating: 2
> "Or what about a picture of Fat Boy in 1955 "

Err, actually it was Fat Man and Little Boy.


RE: Sign of the Times
By ziggo on 8/27/2007 11:19:34 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Any country with launch capability could and probably does have this exact picture. The ohio class isn't exactly new technology, the newest one is going to celebrate its 10th birthday soon. Sub programs are pretty black typically, and I highly doubt that we have taken a 10 year hiatus in devlopment of these things. Partictulary with the spread of atomic weapons.


RE: Sign of the Times
By Kuroyama on 8/27/2007 12:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
I know this'll sound like I'm contradicting my own point, but even if the Ohio class is more than 10 years old, the current propeller design is likely far younger.


RE: Sign of the Times
By omnicronx on 8/27/2007 2:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see what all the fuss is about, its a 10+ year old ship design with a ninja star on the back. Chances are even the propeller is nothing new, just look at it, you would have to think any nation with decent sub technology has their own implementation of the same design, theres only so many designs a propeller can be made from.

Also its not like this sub was caught in the water in port, that was probably a military mistake. Chances are this sub being on dry dock, it was there for a while, and if it was that top secret you would think it would be covered up.

I understand mistakes do happen, but to really believe that this ship was out there for so long and nobody happened to think about the fact that this was a top secret project especially when each worker would have to sign some agreement of some sort, is more naive than believing mistakes do not happen... at least in my mind ;)


RE: Sign of the Times
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 2:46:26 PM , Rating: 1
> "theres only so many designs a propeller can be made from."

On the contrary, there is a nearly-infinite number of possible shapes a prop can take. In the past 30 years alone, the US has spent several hundred million dollars researching propeller designs to maximize efficiency and minimize noise.

> "to really believe that this ship was out there for so long..."

How long was it "out there"? Perhaps it had just been brought in when the photo was snapped, and workers were even then preparing to cover the propeller. Another poster here who actually served on one such ship said it was standard practice to keep the propeller covered in drydock.


RE: Sign of the Times
By omnicronx on 8/27/2007 2:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How long was it "out there"? Perhaps it had just been brought in when the photo was snapped, and workers were even then preparing to cover the propeller. Another poster here who actually served on one such ship said it was standard practice to keep the propeller covered in drydock.

And you are absolutely right, it may have only been out there for a limited time. But its my opinion that it probably was not. I am just thinking statistics wise, what are the chances that it was showing the exact moment a satellite happened to take an image of that very spot? Then again, the U.S did make it to the moon with a tin can, so anything could be possible ;)


RE: Sign of the Times
By omnicronx on 8/27/2007 3:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
hmm i didn't realize this is an aerial view, not a satellite image. This kind of changes things, makes it much more possible that it could have been a mistake.


RE: Sign of the Times
By rsmech on 8/27/2007 11:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
That was my purpose to not take sides at the time but to open a discussion. I have my views & I think we have lost some sense of national pride in exchange for world order.


RE: Sign of the Times
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/27/2007 12:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Oh true enough, but I have a problem with all the publicity that happens when taking said politicians to task.

The amount of publicity that is given to things like the war in Iraq and Afganistan is rediculous. The guys over seas are watching our news programs and watching the regular public opinion polls. They know that Americans dont have the stomach for a protracted battle, they see how we react in the government everytime someone gets blown up. We make it public knowledge when certain decisions are going to be made and they make a point to cause maximum effect during those time frames knowing it will shift the opinion. It's wrong on every level how much media attention is drawn to such things. I'm in favor of banning media personnel from warzones, it's quite out of hand.


RE: Sign of the Times
By cbo on 8/28/2007 3:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm in favor of banning media personnel from warzones, it's quite out of hand.


Although they can be a detriment, they do serve a purpose as well. I know it asking a lot from them, but reports have to be fair, even-handed. The hardest of all for them, is to avoid reporting news with the sole purpose of sensationalism and shock value for ratings.

I could think of examples where reporters came in handy. Genocide in past wars, especially in Africa where the perpetrator is usually the victor, may have gone unnoticed if it wasn't for reporters. But you have your Geraldo's(forgive the spelling) out there who just want to hype their way to a easy Pulitzer.


RE: Sign of the Times
By marsbound2024 on 8/28/2007 1:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
You wouldn't have seen any of this pre-1650s because cameras did not exist then.


RE: Sign of the Times
By jacarte8 on 8/28/2007 3:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
You wouldn't have seen any of this in 1650 because there was no Freedom of the Press in a Constitution prior to 1789.


RE: Sign of the Times
By Treckin on 8/28/07, Rating: 0
Yep...
By Spivonious on 8/27/2007 10:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like a submarine alright. Even if this photo was not supposed to be taken, what does it show? If you asked me to draw a picture of a submarine, I would have drawn something very similar to what's shown. I don't think this poses any security risk whatsoever.




RE: Yep...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/27/2007 10:28:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody has ever seen one in drydock before. Always half submerged. The actual impact here is minimal, but its the simple reality that we are showcasing classified military hardware on the web for every country to see.


RE: Yep...
By jacarte8 on 8/27/2007 11:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
If these pictures are on the internet, then anyone capable of building a submarine would already have this knowledge. If from nowhere else, than from their OWN satellites taking pictures just like this...

These contractors left the ship and propellers uncovered while out of the water. Either way, I doubt very much that this is much of a security breach.


RE: Yep...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 12:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "If from nowhere else, than from their OWN satellites taking pictures just like this..."

How many nations do you think have an array of high-resolution spy satellites? The number is very small, and the US is undoubtably aware of the flight path and timing of each of those satellites, allowing them to respond if need be.

The above photograph wasn't taken via satellite. It was an aeriel photo that, due to the oblique angle, reveals quite a bit more than an true overhead shot would.


RE: Yep...
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/27/2007 1:23:47 PM , Rating: 5
While I won't argue this point, you can pretty much walk up to any hill near Newport News and see stuff like this all the time.

That being said, NN and other shipyards have covered dry docks too. I always figured the really important stuff went on in the covered dry docks.


RE: Yep...
By jacarte8 on 8/28/2007 3:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How many nations do you think have an array of high-resolution spy satellites?

Probably about the same number of nations with the technology you mentioned to estimate sonar characteristics of a prop design from only a photograph...

Satellite photography is oblique about 90% of the time... ever look at Google Earth? Why would other nations' spy satellites be pointed at open ocean when they're directly over a point 200 miles offshore from this shipyard?


RE: Yep...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 6:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
> "Probably about the same number of nations with the technology you mentioned to estimate sonar characteristics of a prop design from only a photograph"

Don't be silly. I could do a fair approximation myself, just from my background in the (only slightly related) field of magnetohydrodynamics. Anyone with direct training in the field can mimick the sonar characteristics of a propeller from a photograph-derived model. It doesn't take the resources of a major nation.


RE: Yep...
By General Disturbance on 8/27/2007 10:29:42 AM , Rating: 3
It's that propeller design...just look at it, very unlike what you normally see. It might seem like a simple thing, but a properly designed propeller allows the sub to be more quiet and stealthy and efficient - very important business in the sub world. The swept back blades smack of computer-designed hydrodynamic engineering, and a country like Russia or China can simply copy this, for free, and benefit greatly. Also, they can simply copy it, run the blade under power underwater, and measure its acoustical properties, thus allowing them to identify something as an American Ohio-class sub that the military had actually designed to sound like a whale - or something. No, propeller design is top secret stuff.


RE: Yep...
By Griswold on 8/27/2007 10:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that the propeller is the interesting part here. But its unlikely that the russians need to copy anything for their own submarines - they're not exactly underdeveloped in that aspect (unlike maybe the electronics inside the sub). China on the other hand...

Then again, you need high resolution close-ups to determine the details that make the difference in this technology.


RE: Yep...
By jacarte8 on 8/27/2007 11:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
Good point... on top of what's already been said, this is like looking at an Asteroids-Arcade simulation of one of our tanks...


RE: Yep...
By masher2 (blog) on 8/27/2007 11:41:07 AM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry, but this just isn't true at all. This photo tells nearly everything about the design of the propeller, certainly the most important aspects:

1. Number of blades
2. Propeller diameter
3. Blade shape/angle of attack
4. Blade pitch and skew.

Also, it allows some estimation of other factors just as blade thickness. With this one photo, a skilled hydrodynamicist could easily create a computer simulation of exactly what the sub will sound like when in operation.


RE: Yep...
By mars777 on 8/27/2007 12:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
Does it really matter?

We have nuclear weapons nowadays, why bother with subs...
Just nuke the Chinese.

</sarcasm>


RE: Yep...
By mars777 on 8/27/2007 12:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
<realism>

Well since they have gone public this is a good thing.
They will advance their tech, make a new propeller and be better than before. Technology doesn't advance until somebody sees it, it advances because of people.


RE: Yep...
By Ringold on 8/27/2007 4:09:10 PM , Rating: 3
Speak for yourself (as you said your weren't a US citizen)!

My bloody tax dollars will be the ones spent to re-invent the wheel -- or in this case, the propellor. Perhaps a $50 in taxes extra per working adult in America because some guy in a plane snapped a photo at just the right time and put it in the intertubes. That was a completely random guess at a dollar amount, but might be in the realm, assuming this was in fact a more recent design and really will now be replaced. Might not sound like a lot but we need to spend money on a lot more than just props.

Easy for someone that probably resides comfortably under the US nuclear umbrella, also paid for by me, (or lives in a place so irrelevant as to not need to be under one) to say it's a good thing. :P

Besides.. I'd rather be gunning for tax cuts at this point, not tax increases, heh.


RE: Yep...
By SandmanWN on 8/27/2007 11:59:16 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. The design of this propeller is identical to several CAD designs I've seen that are freely downloadable on the web. Nothing to see here. This is a becoming a common propeller design.

The only thing that stands out to me is the shear size of it. It might be a trick from the angle of photo but it appears to be of the same diameter of the ships hull.


RE: Yep...
By Kuroyama on 8/27/2007 3:09:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, sure resembles this propeller: (other than sweeping in opposite directions)

http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/ph...


RE: Yep...
By omnicronx on 8/27/2007 3:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only thing that stands out to me is the shear size of it.
Maybe thats what sets it apart, just thinking about normal fan design, the larger the prop, the more air that is pushed through at lower rpm's, and for a submarine you would think this would result in a more efficient prop that resonates less


RE: Yep...
By SandmanWN on 8/27/2007 4:46:02 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, and in order to have a larger than normal prop to propel such a large ship you would need a stronger metal/alloy.

Which coincidentally you can't determine by a simple picture.


RE: Yep...
By hopsandmalt on 8/27/2007 12:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, having served on a Trident at that very same base, and having been drydocked before, the propeller is almost always covered. I dont know why it wasnt on this particular day.

Yes it is a submarine... BUT... Just knowing the number of blades on the propeller is usually classified information. Also, there is a lot of information that can be gathered just from the propeller. Once you know the number of blades and specific acoustic signatures you can easily figure out the submarines speed, as well as class of submarine. It makes them identifiable underwater. There is a lot more information you can gather from that picture, but I dont want government satellites tracking me.


Naivete
By A5un on 8/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Naivete
By omnicronx on 8/27/2007 3:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
Best analogy I have heard in a while!


RE: Naivete
By Ringold on 8/27/2007 4:42:04 PM , Rating: 2
We've got plenty of alliances; they're just entirely useless, save for perhaps NATO. Worth pointing out that NATO happens to include almost every free country worth it's salt and has a powerful defense clause so I'm not sure where you get the idea there's not enough alliances.

When the doves fix the UN so things like Darfur and Iranian nuclear technology can be addressed without issue, let me know.

Until then I don't see the basis for argueing against ensuring national security against all possible threats. That's the job of the military, after all; plan and prepare for war, so that when the doves fail at the UN there remains one more option before failure is all that is left. Also worth noting is this same type of "naive" planning a preperation for "eliminating possible threats" that has seen a world without paralyzing conflict since the 1940s. The UN couldn't even stop a bunch of malnurished rebels in Rwanda; there's a lot of work to be done there before we can stop being vigilant.


RE: Naivete
By A5un on 8/27/2007 5:02:42 PM , Rating: 1
Ironic, some of us may think it's exactly what we've been doing in the past years (maybe since 1940) that got us here where we are. Maybe this is exactly how we got our bad reputation? Who knows.

And what I was suggesting, really, is not to entirely abandon our defense effort (please refer to my analogy on those who choose the second option, as I clearly said that all threats should be eliminated). What I want, and I think need, is for our government to take up effort on doing the first option. The UK wasn't an ally in the beginning (hell, we faught the revolutionary war against them), and I'm sure you'll agree with me that now they're the most valuable ally we've got. I just think our government should take up efforts to establish such allies. Sure we as Americans have done plenty of that (be it donations or volunteering), but our government hasn't. And what the states and citizen do are quite different in my opinion.


RE: Naivete
By SandmanWN on 8/28/2007 12:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
Your entire argument is so very blind. The US was an ISOLATIONIST state before the 1940's. We didn't have a reputation before then. The only reason we have this so called "bad" reputation is that we have become a super power since then and have actually entered into the world theater. Every nation that has stuck its neck out to lend a hand towards others instantly becomes a target for rhetoric, which seems to be exactly the crap you've been listening to.

Today, the government sends out more donations and help more nations than any other on the face of the globe and from listening to your BS it sounds like we don't give a dime. Our projected donations this year will exceed 100 billion dollars, probably closer to 120. Our total aide will total over 3 trillion dollars. We are the largest contributor to the IMF and the World Bank. Not to mention the numbers have steadily increased year after year. What a fool you are.


RE: Naivete
By A5un on 8/28/2007 2:25:11 PM , Rating: 1
You know what, I was just pulling crap outa my ass. I did no research before I typed anything I said. So whatever I said could very well be incorrect. After some digging on google, I'm still unable to find exact figures on just how much the US government alone (excluding citizen contribution) contributes to world aid. Therefore, I remain convinced that the United States GOVERNMENT should have a larger role in world-wide aid, as you've basically done what I did without supporting evidence. American citizen donations collected by the US government then sent off offshore to me does not count as US government's aid, because these are American citizens' aid. Sure we as AMERICAN CITIZENS are probably some of the best people in the world. I don't think there's any doubt in our intention. But the way others understand us might not be the same. For instance, your statement

quote:
The only reason we have this so called "bad" reputation is that we have become a super power since then and have actually entered into the world theater.


I mean, it seems to me either you're an expert on international politics, an extremely patriotic American who's incapable to recognizing our own fault, or just made an honest mistake by typing crap out too fast like I did. As you can see, if what I stated above are the 3 major possible reactions people get from reading your statement, you've already painted yourself black to maybe a-third of the people who read this.


RE: Naivete
By SandmanWN on 8/28/2007 5:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
My numbers were pulled straight off a .gov cite. Your google skills have failed you.

quote:
incapable to recognizing our own fault

All nations have their faults. They just tend to be more exaggerated when your at the top. If you haven't learned that lesson already in life then you soon will.


All these comments are way off base
By aeroengineer1 on 8/27/2007 9:57:09 PM , Rating: 6
I am a modeler, more particularly of model submarines. I can tell you that this is not the only picture that has been released, and even pictures of the props with the canvas covering show the diameter and the number of blades. The general shape of the blade has been known to exist for quite some time, there is a pic of a LA Class Submarine in the Holy Lock area without the canvas, and another one of a LA class taken in San Diego and it looks like the pics were taken with at least a 3-4 MP camera. Guess what, the shape is almost the same, sharp pointed highly swept blades. This shape is not new, though the main details are in the manufacturing process and the blade section. Ever wonder why the Toshiba scandal was so big? Russia was hand finishing their props at the time and then they went to a cnc method. About the only interesting thing to see is that there are no forms of vortex attenuators on the dunce cap. This pic is really old news that is getting a lot of press because the general public has not dug deep enough to see pics of these things that are in books and other places.

Adam




By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 8/27/2007 11:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome post :) Much appreciated.


If this was really that SECRET...
By iFX on 8/27/2007 2:32:56 PM , Rating: 3
... it would be under a covering of some kind...




sensitive
By AlmostExAMD on 8/28/2007 8:15:04 AM , Rating: 3
If it's so secret then I'm sure they can do a better job of concealing a Submarine, Rather than in an open dry dock. Why not use a concealed subpen like World war II.




U.S. Navy's fault not Google Earth
By Grast on 8/28/2007 7:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
This is an issue with the U.S. Navy. I served aboard the U.S.S Georgia from 1991 to 1996. This picture should have never been allowed to be taken because the screw should have been covered. In my time as the water from dry dock was pumped out, I shroud was put over the screw. The ensured that at no time did the screw get a public viewing.

Sometime since my time, the Navy has choosen to allow pictures such as this to be take. Additionally, propulsion systems have moved passed 7 bladed screws. The newest class of submarines use pump jets because they are quiter.

The style and design of 7 bladed screws are no longer considered state secrets.

Please remember, the French sold our blade designs to the Russians in the 80's.

This is a non event

Later...




RightWingTech
By lucyphil on 8/27/07, Rating: -1
RE: RightWingTech
By barclay on 8/27/2007 10:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
So by labelling them as "right-wing nutjobs" you no longer feel the obligation to actually debate them--offer a counter to their arguments with logic and/or facts? How convenient for you.


RE: RightWingTech
By rdeegvainl on 8/28/07, Rating: 0