One man lost. We build 'em good here.
.jpg)
So, do you think that the US Defense industry doesn’t know how to build a double-hull submarine?
Do you think that the US Defense industry could build one, but is unaware of the merits of a double-hull sub and so they don’t?
Do you think that the government is too cheap to pay for a 2nd hull?
Do you think that published information on critical US military technology provides definitive information?
An American sub ran into an underground mountain and survived. It’s hull was torn open. How do you think it survived?
The inner pressure hull (that I was unaware of, in the LA class SSN) near the bow failed to rupture.
I have three novels at home about both U.S. and Russian subs, and in Typhoon, the author states that the LA class SSN has one hull, that if cracked, the sub would flood and sink.
In Danger's Hour, a fictional LA class SSN, the USS Tulsa, is sunk to the bottom of the Norwegian Sea (the surviving crew are rescued) by being rammed from behind by a double-hulled Akula II class SSN, Gepard.
One man lost. We build 'em good here.
That submarine, the USS SAN FRANCISCO survived by suberb engineering from Electric Boat. When it hit the under sea mountain at all ahead flank, it tore open two of its three forward main ballast tanks. If it hit the third of the three forward main ballast tanks the ship definately would have been a complete lost. It was able to provide low prssure air to its remaining forward ballast tank, as well as its 2 aft main ballast tanks.
Electric Boat and Northgrup Gruman have no interest in designing a submarine with dual hulls. Back in the 1950s when there was a submarine race the Soviet used the dual hull design and we went our way with a single hull design.
Was it underground or underwater?