Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: gatech!srchtec!johnb@gatech.edu (John Baldwin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Submission for sci-military
Message-ID: <1990Aug30.030431.132@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 30 Aug 90 03:04:31 GMT
References: <1990Aug21.025615.2757@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug23.015128.3150@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: search technology, inc.
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: gatech!srchtec!johnb@gatech.edu (John Baldwin)

In article <1990Aug23.015128.3150@cbnews.att.com>
 xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng) writes:
>
>This brings us back to the original discussion with something of a different
>aspect:  Would more conventional subs (we're assuming that conventional subs
>are much cheaper to build and perhaps to run) organized in hunter packs be
>more effective than fewer, nucs that will probably have to operate alone?

When you're trying to listen for a stealthy enemy, it makes no sense to do
it with all your brothers and sisters along.  ;-)

Also, the current generation of torpedoes are *very* lethal.  For the
unitiated, that means they pack an explosive punch of whalloping magnitude.
(How's that for being really technical?)

Test shots have not only literally cut a scrapped destroyer in half, but that
same single shot near *vaporized* a good-sized chunk out of its middle.
-- 
John T. Baldwin                      |  johnb%srchtec.uucp@mathcs.emory.edu
Search Technology, Inc.              | 
                                     | "... I had an infinite loop,
My opinions; not my employers'.      |  but it was only for a little while..."