Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: ae219dp%prism@gatech.edu (Devon Prichard)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Military Cuts Summary
Summary: uses for old SSBNs
Message-ID: <13450@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 90 03:34:58 GMT
References: <13376@cbnews.ATT.COM> <13424@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: ae219dp%prism@gatech.edu (Devon Prichard)

concerning Mr. Rooker's comment on using old SSBNs;

while I still think that an SSBN is not suited for attack
work, it did remind me of the use of cargo subs by the
Japanese in late WW II. An SSBN has a lot of interior volume
that could be used for high priority cargo, or special forces
or whatever.  dealing with an old reactor, complete with
radiation-aged structure, would be non-trivial. but, maybe better
than cutting them into scrap.

on the side-tangent of cargo subs, anybody have experience/opinions
concerning the cost-effectiveness/feasibility ??  Popular Science
or Popular Mechanics ran a cover story a few years back on
oil tanker subs, with the upshot being that the reduced losses from
storms etc. made commercial oil tanker subs cost-effective.
in wartime, the lack of a radar/visual signature would make
cargo transport less riskly (recall the British warship losses
in the Falklands War).

-- 
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Devon Prichard             making the world safe for helicopters ... |
 | ae219dp@prism.gatech.edu                                             |
 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||