To: Robert A. Cook, PE; All
Still think they ought to waterproof the bow, tie up the SSN688 to the training site pier, and use the back end for training nukes.
Empty the front of all that can be salvaged for spares and replacements in the other boats.
Can't disagree, Bob.
a. SSN-711 has a more modern plant than the old S5W (that was my cup of tea, back in the day) on the existing training subs, ex- Sam Rayburn & Daniel Webster, down in Charleston. San Fran has the S6G plant, which I assume has more up-to-date Rx control systems, rather than the magnetic amplifiers (sheesh!) that I had to deal with.
b. I just don't see how a boat could go through the shock that San Fran did - and continue to operate productively - without being derated for allowed maximum depth, operating areas, speed and who knows what other restrictions.
c. Would any rational sailor want to serve on a boat that had been through that kind of trauma? Not me.
posted on 03/26/2006 3:14:32 PM PST
(Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.)
San Fran has the S6G plant, which I assume has more up-to-date Rx control systems, rather than the magnetic amplifiers (sheesh!) that I had to deal with.
Not necessarily. My first boat was a 688 (USS Buffalo) that wasn't even getting digital systems even during her DNP whereas the 637's (my second boat was USS Pogy) on all the major systems (NI's, etc). Then again, they got rid of inverters on 688's only to bring them back on the Tridents. Anyone know if they have them on the Seawolf/Virginia class?
posted on 03/26/2006 7:49:16 PM PST
(Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson