Submitted by Leumas404 t3_y7qalt in askscience
yawkat t1_iswkyhe wrote
Yes, this is called passive sonar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonar#Passive_sonar
Not only can you detect enemy sonar pulses, you can also detect other sound sources, such as engine noise. Submarines almost exclusively operate using passive sonar (as opposed to actively sending out pings) so that they can remain hidden.
GolfandPoker t1_isxs9jj wrote
Could you theoretically develop a sonar network that was constantly sending out pulses kind of like a WiFi network. So friendly ships would have access and basically have a map of the waters?
Obviously the ocean is massive and you wouldn’t be able to do this everywhere. But important strategic locations, especially defensive ones, I feel like this could work.
Yen1969 t1_isyhwsb wrote
This is probably relevant to what you're thinking about, although it's not quite the same thing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS
Note the civilian used in section, where it's been used to track whales and seismic activity
VolcanicBear t1_isxw45z wrote
I can't think how you could ever make it so that only friendlies could use it, unless the pulse emitting devices were moving, on a pre-known pattern.
GolfandPoker t1_isxwhki wrote
Moving emitters wouldn’t be too difficult and would also allow the system to follow a submarine or fleet around as well
[deleted] t1_it8zyqy wrote
[removed]
hearnia_2k t1_isxzh8h wrote
Never heard of encryption?
VolcanicBear t1_isy00yr wrote
How're you going to encrypt the direction of origin from a sound wave bouncing off something?
hearnia_2k t1_isydusb wrote
The comment you replied to talked about using the waves to create a 'sonar network' that would send 'out pulses kind of like a WiFi network. So friendly ships would have access and basically have a map of the waters', suggesting a data transmittion through water, using sonar frequencies.
If they had a data transmission system in place, then they could encrypt it. If they did not then how is it similar to a WiFi network, and how would it provide a map, and gated access?
VolcanicBear t1_isygac5 wrote
The comment I replied to did ask about making a sonar network, so I'll ask - how are you going to encrypt your sonar to make the location info they inherently contain private?
If using sonar as a communication means, that's fair I suppose, despite being obscenely inefficient. But I don't think anyone was asking "can we make a network with sound waves instead of radio waves" because the answer would be obvious.
I interpreted it as numerous pulse devices which would make a continually up to date sonar map, which would then inherently be available to anyone within the mapped area if the emitters didn't continuously move on an undeterminable path.
This comment is primarily just explaining that I guess we interpreted the question differently.
[deleted] t1_isyh3ww wrote
[removed]
SamQuan236 t1_isynqc2 wrote
if you encode the outgoing signal as white noise, it won't clearly correlate to reflections from the environment, as you would have to subtract the random additive noise from the emitter, which would drown out the quieter reflection.
however , if you know the sequence from the emitter in advance (say you know the random key) , then you can subtract it from your inbound signal, enhancing the signal to noise .
its a bit like radar jamming, or selective availability in gps.
Coomb t1_it8w7cx wrote
This is grossly implausible for sonar for a variety of reasons, including (but almost certainly not limited to):
- potentially very substantial added complexity to receiving microphones in order to extract spectral information from a sonar return (depending on spectrum used)
- the extremely low bandwidth available from sonar pulses from emitters a practical distance away (at least tens to hundreds of kilometers if not more) because of the attenuation of higher frequency sound in water
- the high frequency dependence of attenuation and dispersal of sound in water
- the extremely challenging noise environment at usable frequencies
TerpenesByMS t1_isyzana wrote
The ocean is heterogeneous to sound waves, so such a system would be extremely complex and error-prone. Not to mention disruptive to aquatic life. Whales are pissed about international shipping.
[deleted] t1_isz88pb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isy7f5v wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isyhca3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it0854y wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it8zu9c wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isx35li wrote
[removed]
phdoofus t1_isxzni8 wrote
Can you use the background noise spectrum for detection? Or are submarine hulls too sound absorbant and the reflection back to your sensors too weak?
spider-bro t1_it90nw5 wrote
You need information to be inherent to the signal in order to receive information from it. Either you need a big coherent wave that comes from an unknown direction (so that you can detect alterations in the received wavefront) or you need random noise coming from a known location (so you can detect the direction of increased noise).
Each information (i.e. non-randomness) factor adds disambiguity to the resulting detected signal. A signal of known origin and coherent timing gives you the best bet of detection the direction and range to another object.
What comes back from your coherent active sonar is already fuzzy. Any fuzziness in the input to that process increases fuzziness in the output. Eventually the fuzziness is high enough you're getting no useful information.
TerpenesByMS t1_isyz1o0 wrote
I learned about this playing Tom Clancy's SSN - submarine combat sim! Always running passive if there are enemies around.
Realism was the focus, which made it super slow for how arcade-like it felt.
[deleted] t1_iszlny1 wrote
[deleted]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments