Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
Previous Page
/ 2
Next Page
7/10/2007 6:35:48 PM EDT
First off, it's an awesome movie.  Has anyone else noticed A&E has been showing it on Sunday morning a lot lately?

Secondly, could that propulsion system really work?  Could you have a jet engine under water?
7/10/2007 6:36:55 PM EDT
[#1]
yeah, we studied it in our jet propulsion class

a Japanese company tried to do it IIRC

they got a boat to do like 3 kts, use a bigass nuke reactor and make a helluvalot of noise


possible, yes, practical, nope
7/10/2007 6:37:55 PM EDT
[#2]

Principle

An electric current is passed through seawater in the presence of an intense magnetic field. Functionally, the seawater is then the moving, conductive part of an electric motor. Pushing the water out the back accelerates the vehicle.

MHD is attractive because it has no moving parts, which means that a good design might be silent, reliable, efficient, and inexpensive.

The film adaptation of The Hunt for Red October popularized the magnetohydrodynamic drive as a caterpillar drive for submarines, an undetectable "silent drive" intended to achieve stealth in submarine warfare. In reality, the current traveling through the water would create gases and noise, and the magnetic fields would induce a detectable magnetic signature. In the novel, of which the movie was an adaptation, the caterpillar was a pumpjet.

The major problem with MHD is that with current technologies it is more expensive and much slower than a propeller driven by an engine. The extra expense is from the large generator that must be driven by an engine. Such a large generator is not required when an engine directly drives a propeller.

A number of experimental methods of spacecraft propulsion are based on magnetohydrodynamic principles. In these the working fluid is usually a plasma or a thin cloud of ions. Some of the techniques include various kinds of ion thruster, the magnetoplasmadynamic thruster, and the variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket.

[edit] Prototypes

The first working prototype, the Yamato 1, was completed in Japan in 1991, by the Ship & Ocean Foundation (later known as the Ocean Policy Research Foundation). The ship was first successfully propelled in Kobe harbor in June 1992. Yamato 1 is propelled by two MHD thrusters that run without any moving parts.

In the 1990s, Mitsubishi built several prototypes of ships propelled by an MHD system. These ships were only able to reach speeds of 15 km/h, despite higher projections.
7/10/2007 6:46:11 PM EDT
[#3]
Yeah, every time I see that movie I marvel about how good it is.  A lot of that comes from the source material, but also the actors, the look and feel of the movie, the pacing.  It gets just about everything right.
7/10/2007 6:48:42 PM EDT
[#4]
It is a great movie.

Holds up to many repeated viewings, which is what I consider the hallmark of a great movie.
7/10/2007 6:48:52 PM EDT
[#5]
The book is WAY better than the movie
Sean Connery is great, but Jack Ryan is totally casted wrong.
I refuse to admit his name, because that's not Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford in later movies is a better Jack Ryan)
7/10/2007 6:52:02 PM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:

Principle

An electric current is passed through seawater in the presence of an intense magnetic field. Functionally, the seawater is then the moving, conductive part of an electric motor. Pushing the water out the back accelerates the vehicle.

MHD is attractive because it has no moving parts, which means that a good design might be silent, reliable, efficient, and inexpensive.

The film adaptation of The Hunt for Red October popularized the magnetohydrodynamic drive as a caterpillar drive for submarines, an undetectable "silent drive" intended to achieve stealth in submarine warfare. In reality, the current traveling through the water would create gases and noise, and the magnetic fields would induce a detectable magnetic signature. In the novel, of which the movie was an adaptation, the caterpillar was a pumpjet.

The major problem with MHD is that with current technologies it is more expensive and much slower than a propeller driven by an engine. The extra expense is from the large generator that must be driven by an engine. Such a large generator is not required when an engine directly drives a propeller.

A number of experimental methods of spacecraft propulsion are based on magnetohydrodynamic principles. In these the working fluid is usually a plasma or a thin cloud of ions. Some of the techniques include various kinds of ion thruster, the magnetoplasmadynamic thruster, and the variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket.

[edit] Prototypes

The first working prototype, the Yamato 1, was completed in Japan in 1991, by the Ship & Ocean Foundation (later known as the Ocean Policy Research Foundation). The ship was first successfully propelled in Kobe harbor in June 1992. Yamato 1 is propelled by two MHD thrusters that run without any moving parts.

In the 1990s, Mitsubishi built several prototypes of ships propelled by an MHD system. These ships were only able to reach speeds of 15 km/h, despite higher projections.


The British perfected the pumpjet on their SSN's and now we use them on the Seawolf and Virginia class SSN's.
7/10/2007 6:53:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Are there any other silent drive systems?
7/10/2007 6:53:49 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Principle

An electric current is passed through seawater in the presence of an intense magnetic field. Functionally, the seawater is then the moving, conductive part of an electric motor. Pushing the water out the back accelerates the vehicle.

MHD is attractive because it has no moving parts, which means that a good design might be silent, reliable, efficient, and inexpensive.

The film adaptation of The Hunt for Red October popularized the magnetohydrodynamic drive as a caterpillar drive for submarines, an undetectable "silent drive" intended to achieve stealth in submarine warfare. In reality, the current traveling through the water would create gases and noise, and the magnetic fields would induce a detectable magnetic signature. In the novel, of which the movie was an adaptation, the caterpillar was a pumpjet.

The major problem with MHD is that with current technologies it is more expensive and much slower than a propeller driven by an engine. The extra expense is from the large generator that must be driven by an engine. Such a large generator is not required when an engine directly drives a propeller.

A number of experimental methods of spacecraft propulsion are based on magnetohydrodynamic principles. In these the working fluid is usually a plasma or a thin cloud of ions. Some of the techniques include various kinds of ion thruster, the magnetoplasmadynamic thruster, and the variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket.

[edit] Prototypes

The first working prototype, the Yamato 1, was completed in Japan in 1991, by the Ship & Ocean Foundation (later known as the Ocean Policy Research Foundation). The ship was first successfully propelled in Kobe harbor in June 1992. Yamato 1 is propelled by two MHD thrusters that run without any moving parts.

In the 1990s, Mitsubishi built several prototypes of ships propelled by an MHD system. These ships were only able to reach speeds of 15 km/h, despite higher projections.


The British perfected the pumpjet on their SSN's and now we use them on the Seawolf and Virginia class SSN's.


You perked my interest.

More info?
7/10/2007 7:02:15 PM EDT
[#9]
"A Russki don't take a dump without a plan."  - President Fred Thompson
7/10/2007 7:09:06 PM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Principle

An electric current is passed through seawater in the presence of an intense magnetic field. Functionally, the seawater is then the moving, conductive part of an electric motor. Pushing the water out the back accelerates the vehicle.

MHD is attractive because it has no moving parts, which means that a good design might be silent, reliable, efficient, and inexpensive.

The film adaptation of The Hunt for Red October popularized the magnetohydrodynamic drive as a caterpillar drive for submarines, an undetectable "silent drive" intended to achieve stealth in submarine warfare. In reality, the current traveling through the water would create gases and noise, and the magnetic fields would induce a detectable magnetic signature. In the novel, of which the movie was an adaptation, the caterpillar was a pumpjet.

The major problem with MHD is that with current technologies it is more expensive and much slower than a propeller driven by an engine. The extra expense is from the large generator that must be driven by an engine. Such a large generator is not required when an engine directly drives a propeller.

A number of experimental methods of spacecraft propulsion are based on magnetohydrodynamic principles. In these the working fluid is usually a plasma or a thin cloud of ions. Some of the techniques include various kinds of ion thruster, the magnetoplasmadynamic thruster, and the variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket.

[edit] Prototypes

The first working prototype, the Yamato 1, was completed in Japan in 1991, by the Ship & Ocean Foundation (later known as the Ocean Policy Research Foundation). The ship was first successfully propelled in Kobe harbor in June 1992. Yamato 1 is propelled by two MHD thrusters that run without any moving parts.

In the 1990s, Mitsubishi built several prototypes of ships propelled by an MHD system. These ships were only able to reach speeds of 15 km/h, despite higher projections.


The British perfected the pumpjet on their SSN's and now we use them on the Seawolf and Virginia class SSN's.


You perked my interest.

More info?


Here are the specs for the Seawolf and Virginia classes, not much info on them.  The most I have seen was in Tom Clancy's book on SSN's.
Seawolf
Virginia-class

ETA: The Pumpjets are extremely quiet and give instantaneous response without the worry of cavitation.  A big advance over propellers!!!
7/10/2007 7:14:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Your conclusions were all wrong Ryan, Halsey acted stupidly.
7/10/2007 7:21:49 PM EDT
[#12]
When he reached the New World, Cortez burned his ships behind him.  As a result, his men were well motivated.
7/10/2007 7:28:59 PM EDT
[#13]
Can you launch an ICBM horizontally?
Sure, why would you want to?
**************
I wish to marry a round American woman and raise rabbits and she will cook them for me.
*******************
They let you do that? Travel State to state?
State to state.
No papers?
No papers.
********************
Pavarotti coming out their asses. Meanwhile Jones here...
********************
This thing will get out of control. It will get out of control and we will be lucky to live throught it.

7/10/2007 7:32:17 PM EDT
[#14]
I've never seen a shark eat an octopus....
7/10/2007 7:33:22 PM EDT
[#15]

Quoted:
Yeah, every time I see that movie I marvel about how good it is.  A lot of that comes from the source material, but also the actors, the look and feel of the movie, the pacing.  It gets just about everything right.



It gets just about everything right.


Yes.

I can't recall the name now but a former Naval Officer, submarine sailor and former ONI, should probably have gotten co-author status on Hunt for Red.  That is per Clancy by the way.




T
7/10/2007 7:33:38 PM EDT
[#16]
7/10/2007 7:33:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Great movie.
7/10/2007 7:35:36 PM EDT
[#18]

Quoted:
The book is WAY better than the movie.


That's a given, BUT I think that the movie was the best adaptation that they could of done without making it a 12hr mini-series.


Sean Connery is great, but Jack Ryan is totally casted wrong.
I refuse to admit his name, because that's not Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford in later movies is a better Jack Ryan)


I gotta disagree with ya there, I think The One That Shall Not be Named did a better job as Ryan than Ford did. And a Hell of a lot better than Edward Burns did.
(Yes, I know that was actually the Affleck guy...)  
7/10/2007 7:35:54 PM EDT
[#19]
When I was nine I memorized the entire movie. I can still quote it verbatim. (Very annoying at parties)
7/10/2007 7:36:16 PM EDT
[#20]
I actually like Baldwin as Jack Ryan.

Great actor.  Shitty politics.
7/10/2007 7:37:00 PM EDT
[#21]
He turned down the role in Patriot games to be on Broadway.
7/10/2007 7:37:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Dmitri, don't tell me you've lost ANOTHER submarine!
7/10/2007 7:38:05 PM EDT
[#23]

Quoted:
I've never seen a shark eat an octopus....


...but I aint never seen no phantom Russian submarine.
7/10/2007 7:38:14 PM EDT
[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The book is WAY better than the movie.


That's a given, BUT I think that the movie was the best adaptation that they could of done without making it a 12hr mini-series.


Sean Connery is great, but Jack Ryan is totally casted wrong.
I refuse to admit his name, because that's not Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford in later movies is a better Jack Ryan)


I gotta disagree with ya there, I think The One That Shall Not be Named did a better job as Ryan than Ford did. And a Hell of a lot better than Edward Burns did.
(Yes, I know that was actually the Affleck guy...)  



Jack Ryan is the reluctant hero. As much The One That Shall Not Be Named can go fuck himself, I think he portrayed Ryan very much like how I imagined him from the books.

Ford was excellent as well!
7/10/2007 7:39:44 PM EDT
[#25]
I think Baldwin was a slightly better Ryan, but Gates McFadden was a WAY better wife!
7/10/2007 7:41:22 PM EDT
[#26]


"It reminds me of the heady days of Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin when the world trembled at the sound of our rockets. Now they will tremble again - at the sound of our silence. The order is: engage the silent drive. "

Captain Ramius ownz your page 2.
7/10/2007 7:43:29 PM EDT
[#27]

Quoted:
Are there any other silent drive systems?


There are NO SILENT drives.


A diesel sub running on batteries is a very tough adversary though there is an uninformed contingent here that appears to believe diesel subs are nothing to worry about.  Add an AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) system to our diesel sub and you have a damned nightmare to fight from an SSN.

Detection range by either sub will be close, very close............perhaps within 5,000 yards.  Unfortunately, there is a decent likelihood that both subs would die.



T
7/10/2007 7:53:49 PM EDT
[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've never seen a shark eat an octopus....

...but I aint never seen no phantom Russian submarine.

LOL.

(My quote was wrong, btw....)

7/10/2007 7:56:00 PM EDT
[#29]

Quoted:
A diesel sub running on batteries is a very tough adversary though there is an uninformed contingent here that appears to believe diesel subs are nothing to worry about.

Like who?

Diesel subs are a royal PITA to find.
7/10/2007 8:00:35 PM EDT
[#30]

Quoted:
The book is WAY better than the movie
Sean Connery is great, but Jack Ryan is totally casted wrong.
I refuse to admit his name, because that's not Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford in later movies is a better Jack Ryan)



What he said.
7/10/2007 8:00:54 PM EDT
[#31]

Quoted:
I actually like Baldwin as Jack Ryan.

Great actor.  Shitty politics.


+1

I thought he was excellent in that movie, better than Ford or that other douche.
7/10/2007 10:35:56 PM EDT
[#32]
I would have liked to have seen montana
7/10/2007 10:46:43 PM EDT
[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yeah, every time I see that movie I marvel about how good it is.  A lot of that comes from the source material, but also the actors, the look and feel of the movie, the pacing.  It gets just about everything right.



It gets just about everything right.


Yes.

I can't recall the name now but a former Naval Officer, submarine sailor and former ONI, should probably have gotten co-author status on Hunt for Red.  That is per Clancy by the way.




T


Larry Bond

He wrote a few good book himself.
7/10/2007 10:49:43 PM EDT
[#34]

Quoted:
I think Baldwin was a slightly better Ryan, but Gates McFadden was a WAY better wife!

? she one line the whole movie
7/10/2007 10:55:20 PM EDT
[#35]
The movie was one of the reasons I bught a LaserDisc player, and it was the first disc that I bought for it.  Still have the disc (and on my 3rd player).  
7/10/2007 10:55:22 PM EDT
[#36]
Submariner uncle of mine is intellectually on another plane of existence from the rest of us.  This prevents him from communicating effectively with anyone other than others with an IQ in the just under 200 range.


This causes him to be extremely dull.

He damn near danced a jig when he told me about Clancy's 1st 2 books. They caused more animation in him than I've seen in the 3 decades I've known him combined.




Movie gets better every time I see it.  I've gotta read his early books again.
7/10/2007 11:34:25 PM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:
I would have liked to have seen montana


The funny part is...

...The next time you see Sam Neill on the big screen is in Jurassic Park.


...In Badlands, Montana.
7/10/2007 11:49:42 PM EDT
[#38]



Never thought of that...
7/11/2007 12:13:56 AM EDT
[#39]
The Russians don't take a dump without a plan.
7/11/2007 12:21:50 AM EDT
[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Principle

An electric current is passed through seawater in the presence of an intense magnetic field. Functionally, the seawater is then the moving, conductive part of an electric motor. Pushing the water out the back accelerates the vehicle.

MHD is attractive because it has no moving parts, which means that a good design might be silent, reliable, efficient, and inexpensive.

The film adaptation of The Hunt for Red October popularized the magnetohydrodynamic drive as a caterpillar drive for submarines, an undetectable "silent drive" intended to achieve stealth in submarine warfare. In reality, the current traveling through the water would create gases and noise, and the magnetic fields would induce a detectable magnetic signature. In the novel, of which the movie was an adaptation, the caterpillar was a pumpjet.

The major problem with MHD is that with current technologies it is more expensive and much slower than a propeller driven by an engine. The extra expense is from the large generator that must be driven by an engine. Such a large generator is not required when an engine directly drives a propeller.

A number of experimental methods of spacecraft propulsion are based on magnetohydrodynamic principles. In these the working fluid is usually a plasma or a thin cloud of ions. Some of the techniques include various kinds of ion thruster, the magnetoplasmadynamic thruster, and the variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket.

[edit] Prototypes

The first working prototype, the Yamato 1, was completed in Japan in 1991, by the Ship & Ocean Foundation (later known as the Ocean Policy Research Foundation). The ship was first successfully propelled in Kobe harbor in June 1992. Yamato 1 is propelled by two MHD thrusters that run without any moving parts.

In the 1990s, Mitsubishi built several prototypes of ships propelled by an MHD system. These ships were only able to reach speeds of 15 km/h, despite higher projections.


The British perfected the pumpjet on their SSN's and now we use them on the Seawolf and Virginia class SSN's.


You perked my interest.

More info?


Here are the specs for the Seawolf and Virginia classes, not much info on them.  The most I have seen was in Tom Clancy's book on SSN's.
Seawolf
Virginia-class

ETA: The Pumpjets are extremely quiet and give instantaneous response without the worry of cavitation.  A big advance over propellers!!!


Unfortunately the boat I was on had a standard screw.  We had a cavitation indicator that would tell us if we were getting on it too fast.  If we weren't paying attention, Control or Sonar would call back and shit on us (me).  Since we didn't have the pumpjet propulsor (as it's called in the tech manuals) I never really gave much thought to learning how it worked.  

From what I read with a bit of googling, it basically is a set of blades, maybe some stationary with a foil shaped ring around it that reduces cavitation.

BTW:  Cavitation is the formation and subsequent collapse of steam bubbles in water.  Basically, the trailing edge of a propeller blade causes enough of a drip in pressure that the water in that area basically boils.  The next blade comes around and causes an increase in pressure which rapidly collapses the bubbles, creating a POP sound.  Many thousands of these at a time make a shitload of noise.

"RIGHT FULL RUDDER!  REVERSE STARBOARD ENGINE!"

As a good aside:  Music:  Red October has outstanding music.  Composed by Basil Polydouris.  He also composed the music for the epic ARFcom documentary "Red Dawn."


7/11/2007 12:31:32 AM EDT
[#41]

Quoted:

Diesel subs are a royal PITA to find.


+ eleventy billion

A diesel sub on batteries is a FUCKING nightmare to prosecute!

Even the "shitty" ones are tough.



Good thing the chi-coms only have 50 or so...
7/11/2007 8:05:49 AM EDT
[#42]
7/11/2007 8:09:18 AM EDT
[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Yeah, every time I see that movie I marvel about how good it is.  A lot of that comes from the source material, but also the actors, the look and feel of the movie, the pacing.  It gets just about everything right.



It gets just about everything right.


Yes.

I can't recall the name now but a former Naval Officer, submarine sailor and former ONI, should probably have gotten co-author status on Hunt for Red.  That is per Clancy by the way.




T


Larry Bond

He wrote a few good book himself.


Thanks sherrick.


--------------------------------------------------------



A little aside and again per Clancey.  The final decision to make Hunt for Red a single author book was based on economics.  Seems that books with dual authors do NOT sell as well as those with single authors.



T
7/11/2007 8:15:06 AM EDT
[#44]
"Active sonar. One ping only."

...

IIRC HFRO was one of the books Clancy was alleged to have written completely by himself... After playing a modern naval warfare boardgame sim called "Harpoon" he came up with the idea for the book. This is going off memory here but that's what I recall.

I had wanted to get into Harpoon but never got the chance.
7/11/2007 8:46:45 AM EDT
[#45]

Quoted:
"Active sonar. One ping only."



And note.......... the active sonar was equipped to transmit a SINGLE PING.  Push one button and you get one, single ping.

Actually used in a situation where range has not been established.  The sub will make a single ping, wait for range verification, enter range data and immediately shoot.  Sub will shoot even if range data does not confirm.

'Single ping and shoot.'  If the sub transmits, the sub is going to shoot and shoot almost immediately.

Sequence might be sorta like this:

Warshots are loaded in tubes 1 & 4
Need range verification to complete firing solution
Sonar, single ping the target
Open the outer (torpedo tube) doors(blast shields)
Sonar reports range is 18,400 yds.
Range data is entered and firing solution is completed
Shoot tubes 1 & 4.
Tubes 1 & 4 fired electrically
Torpedoes running hot, staright and normal
Close the outer doors
Let's get our asses out of here.





T
7/11/2007 8:52:12 AM EDT
[#46]

Quoted:
The book is WAY better than the movie


+1.


Sean Connery is great, but Jack Ryan is totally casted wrong.
I refuse to admit his name, because that's not Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford in later movies is a better Jack Ryan)


I completely disagree. Despite being a leftist scumbag idiot, Alex Baldwin is EXACTLY the way I always envisioned Jack Ryan. Connery came pretty close to Raimius.

ETA: Oh, and William Dafoe is TOTALLY WRONG as Clark.
7/11/2007 8:58:02 AM EDT
[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The book is WAY better than the movie


+1.


Sean Connery is great, but Jack Ryan is totally casted wrong.
I refuse to admit his name, because that's not Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford in later movies is a better Jack Ryan)


I completely disagree. Despite being a leftist scumbag idiot, Alex Baldwin is EXACTLY the way I always envisioned Jack Ryan. Connery came pretty close to Raimius.


I like Ford in most movies but he wasn't a great Ryan. Baldwin was better.
7/11/2007 9:04:33 AM EDT
[#48]
"That torpedo did not self destruct.  You heard it hit the hull, and I was never here."
7/11/2007 9:06:24 AM EDT
[#49]
GREAT! movie. I could watch it weekly. My favorite scene is when they just engaged the caterpillar drive or what ever they called and the Russian crew starts singing. He says let them sing! Thats cool. No idea what they are saying but its a great scene.
7/11/2007 9:09:10 AM EDT
[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
The book is WAY better than the movie


+1.


Sean Connery is great, but Jack Ryan is totally casted wrong.
I refuse to admit his name, because that's not Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford in later movies is a better Jack Ryan)


I completely disagree. Despite being a leftist scumbag idiot, Alex Baldwin is EXACTLY the way I always envisioned Jack Ryan. Connery came pretty close to Raimius.


I like Ford in most movies but he wasn't a great Ryan. Baldwin was better.


I agree completely. Baldwin was exactly the Ryan I envisioned when I read the books.

Ford is probably my favorite actor but just wasn't cast right in the Ryan role.
Previous Page
/ 2
Next Page