Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: [Re: H202 Submarine Propulsion (was Re: Nicknames)] Message-ID: <1990Aug23.015058.2999@cbnews.att.com> Date: 23 Aug 90 01:50:58 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 37 Approved: military@att.att.com From: att!utzoo!henry >From: richard welty >many argue that the US was too quick to discard the conventional >submarine, though. they're cheaper and they're quieter... Although it's true that the USN abandoned conventional subs too quickly, one should be a bit cautious about such statements. Conventional subs are cheaper and quieter, yes... but they do different missions than the ones the nuclear subs are used for. A good fraction of the cost of nuclear attack subs is high-end sonar equipment for hunting hostile subs in the open ocean. Such equipment is seldom fitted to conventional subs, and on the one or two occasions when this has been done, they didn't look so cheap any more. As for quiet, yes, they're extremely quiet when sitting dead in the water or motoring along at low speed. But if you are doing something that needs long-range mobility underwater, they simply can't do it at all. They do not have the speed or endurance; for long-range work, they are surface vessels, and noisy ones at that. It is important to understand that conventional and nuclear submarines are two very different types of vessels with very different characteristics. A nuclear sub is not just a conventional sub with a more expensive propulsion system, in the same way that an aircraft carrier is not just a helicopter- equipped destroyer with a bigger flight deck. There are some jobs that the destroyer does better, but it is not a viable substitute for a carrier if you are trying to do a carrier's job. Nuclear propulsion was such a vast improvement on conventional sub propulsion -- in most ways -- that nuclear subs rapidly evolved in very different directions from conventional ones, exploiting the new propulsion to do things the conventional subs couldn't. The two types have quite different missions now. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry