Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Stealth Boats
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.033249.3848@amd.com>
Date: 27 Mar 91 18:37:00 GMT
References: <1991Mar27.051519.23104@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 48
Approved: military@amd.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu

>From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT)
>The Germans are working on new conventional subs that are more quite and
>cheaper then our nuclear ones...

As I've mentioned before:  be careful, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Nuclear and non-nuclear subs are very different, in more ways than just
their propulsion systems.  They are different classes of vessels with
different missions and different equipment -- for example, non-nuclear
subs rarely have the big, capable, costly sonar rigs of the nuclear
attack subs -- and comparing price tags is a dubious practice.  Once or
twice people have tried to build non-nuclear subs to do nuclear-sub
missions, and those have turned out to be far more costly than the usual
run of non-nuclear subs.

>The rest of the world is going to figure out that a few diesel-electric
>subs can easily mess up the operations of an entire U.S. surface fleet.

Now this I am inclined to agree with.  The RN worried a lot about the one
or two Argentine subs in the Falklands, and it appears they had one or
two close calls.

>And mess up supply from the States.

This isn't too likely.  Non-nuclear subs are unlikely to show well in
anti-merchant missions in open ocean against modern opposition.  They
have to spend most of their time on the surface if they want to cover
distances, and surfaced they are conspicuous and vulnerable.  Their
specialty is short-range coastal operations.

>     ... and a well organized mine laying operation
>and you can put surface fleets out!  Mines are cheap and take time to clear.
>They worked in Haiphong Harbor and worked in the Persian Gulf (Marines
>didn't land)...

The Marines did fake an amphibious landing as a planned deception in support
of the ground offensive, so they weren't too frightened of mines.  Minelaying
and minesweeping *is* an area that the USN has neglected badly -- most of
the Allied minesweeping capability in the Gulf was British -- but it's an
area that most of the likely troublemakers have neglected too.  Whether in
the USN or a third-world navy, "you don't get promoted for commanding a
minefield".
-- 
"[Some people] positively *wish* to     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry