Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov
From: eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Trident-II Missile Launch
Keywords: The Sub Substained No Damage?
Message-ID: <5482@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Apr 89 03:05:35 GMT
References: <5433@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 22
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: eos!eugene@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Eugene Miya)

There was footage of the sub leaving port on this test.  An extra
antenna (standard) had been outfitted on the conning tower sail, it is
visible in some early launch footage.  This means the sub was basically at
periscope depth.
In article <5433@cbnews.ATT.COM> pcl@ihlpf.ATT.COM (pcl) writes:
>Questions and curiosities:
>	How deep was the sub when launching the test missile?
Oh about 60 feet.  As subs are measured (keel).
>	What is the maximum underwater speed of the sub when launching
>		 missiles?  Or does the sub have to be stationary?
I believe this is classified.  But not stationary.
>	Were the debris from the exploded missile onto the sub? 
Possibly, but there is no footage of the sub returning.  Possibly
classified pending inspection of the hull.
>	How about the shockwaves?  Did it shake the sub a bit? 
Ditto.
>	In general, how vulnerable is the sub against failed missile launch?
Ditto.  But this is probably known.