Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: terryr@cse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Submission for sci-military Message-ID: <1990Aug21.025615.2757@cbnews.att.com> Date: 21 Aug 90 02:56:15 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 59 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Terry Rooker Path: ogicse!terryr From: terryr@ogicse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: [Re: H202 Submarine Propulsion (was Re: Nicknames)] Message-ID: <11520@ogicse.ogi.edu> Date: 20 Aug 90 14:49:01 GMT Article-I.D.: ogicse.11520 Posted: Mon Aug 20 07:49:01 1990 References: <1990Aug15.032837.27755@cbnews.att.com> Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR Lines: 44 In article <1990Aug15.032837.27755@cbnews.att.com> welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: > > >many argue that the US was too quick to discard the conventional >submarine, though. they're cheaper and they're quieter (batteries >driving electric motors make a lot less noise than reactors driving >steam turbines driving generators driving electric motors.) the >US has retained in active service a number of older conventional >powered subs so that anti-sub forces can practice exercises and learn >about the unique problems presented by conventional powered submarines. > Although I tend to agree, I also accept the Navy's arguments. The first nukes were very noisy. There have been some comments to the effect the early boats were so noisy that they were next to worthless. By the early 60's nuke technology was suffeciently advanced, that they were competitive with the diesels, and had many advantages. By then the 2 styles of submarines required largely different technologies, it was a choice of where to concentrate funding. Attempting to develop both would probably have been too expensive for congress to swallow. Considering the state of diesel boats through the early 70's, this was probably a wise decision (yes, there are exceptions, most notable the German type-207's and derivatives). Now the situation is very different. With modern batteries, and air-independent propulsion the diesels can compete with the nukes in every area but sustained high speed. As events in the Persian Gulf( and the Falklands for that matter) show this requirement is still very important to the USN. Advances in submarine propulsion have also made the most modern nukes competitive with diesel boats on batteries. So I guess the choice is still not obvious. There is also the problem with maintaining two separate personnel training and qualification systems. It is the lack of specialized training and experience that have been attributed to causing the accidents on the USN's conventional boats. That may just be political chaff to justify scrapping them. Of course the accidents make the decision for the boat that burns. During this fiscal year, or by next fiscal year the last of the USN SS's will be gone. At that time the USN will have the distinction of having the only all-nuke submarine fleet. -- Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu