Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!psuvax1!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: "Slow"-attack submarines
Message-ID: <10021@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Oct 89 04:22:37 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh)

Building a fast-attack sub is expensive (the yet to be built Seawolf is
expected to cost $1.6 billion @). A large part of the expense is building
a reactor powerful enough to most the sub at 30+ knots.

But, subs spend most of their time at 3-5 knots. Would it be cost effective to
build a nuclear sub with a reactor just powerful enough for a 5 knot cruise
(plus enough stored energy to allow limited runs to 30+ knots)? While this may
not be effective for fast-convoy escort or convoy hunting, it could be very
effective in barrier operations -- guarding the GIUK gap, patroling under the
ice in the Canadian NW, clearing an area which a convoy is expected to pass
through, etc.
-- 
... He was determined to discover the		David Pugh
underlying logic behind the universe.		...!seismo!cmucspt!ius3!dep
    Which was going to be hard, because
there wasn't one.	_Mort_,  Terry Pratchett