Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: heflin@cod.nosc.mil (Greg R. Heflin) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Sub communications Message-ID: <15457@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 11 Apr 90 03:17:07 GMT References: <15387@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego Lines: 21 Approved: military@att.att.com From: heflin@cod.nosc.mil (Greg R. Heflin) >From: >Why would it be hard to communicate with a submerged submarine? You could >run a buoy to the surface on a fiber optic cable, and a transceiver could >communicate with a satellite. When you're done, the buoy could be reeled in >as it's air was let out. > But this would make detection of a submarine much easier. I thought the main advantage of a missle submarine was that *IF* it stayed submerged *AND* it did not send out messages that in the open ocean a submarine is very hard to detect. And what happens if the satellite (or any other methode of 'continually enabling the PALs') either fails or it attacked/destroyed? -gregory -- -gregory Just my two cents which shouldn't make a flame, unless you rub them real hard.