Posted on 12/01/2015 11:15:10 AM PST by C19fan
Yes, they’ve got the new AIP systems that allow submerged operations for 2-3 weeks. They don’t have the speed or world-spanning range of our nuclear attack boats, but they are quiet and deadly for close-in, littoral operations.
Oh we could well-probably use a few. OTOH, I would hope we don’t show all of our capabilities during such “games”.
Commanding officer was a muzzie and he took his orders directly from the White Hut?
Drop sonar buoys with active ping because they are not hiding at the same time they are seeking the enemy.
Given to them to access their capabilities and practices.
We were likely testing their capability to find out at what point they CAN find us. The crew of the attack sub were probably blowing ballast, cavitating their propellers and banging empty pots and pans against the hull before the Indians found then.
India has a horrible ego problem; wanting to be relevant while they remain simply another third-world country with a lot of first-world gear used by third-world people.
True.
Cover a lot more distance. . . in a shorter time?
Or spend a couple of years as a Submarine Sonar Officer. ;-)
Naval war games, air, land and sea conducted with other countries typically have restrictions placed on the US participants to create a balance where the other countries forces have a chance at success and the US forces are placed under unusually demanding situations.
No way of knowing what the scenario was during this exercise.
Yeah, that more than trumps anything I’ve got!
Had a guy who worked for me about 25 years ago who had been an engineering officer on a 688 boat. There wasn’t much he could talk about, but one thing for sure - he was confident of their ability to be quiet, avoid ship- and air-based ASW assets, and take out surface combatants.
I’m not buying it.
I can see it happening. It all depends on the Commanding Officer. The “Von Richthofen Dicta” is a factor in this sort of thing also. As the Baron said, “It’s not the crate, it’s the pilot”. I served aboard a flight 1 688 in the early 80s. During an exercise in the Caribbean we took out an entire CVBG. Of course we had a CO with a pair the size of shaft bearings. 4 48s Into the bird farm, to open the ball, reloaded while evading under the (simulated) blazing wreck. Popped back to PD, only because the scenario required it, and let fly a couple of Harpoons into what turned out to be the oiler. Then torpedoed and “Pooned” every thing in sight. A defensive ring around a carrier is less effective if you’re already inside shooting out. Our only disappointment was that the CVBG returned to Norfolk before we did, and the CO would not let us lash a broom to the periscope as we came by the carrier piers. Fast forward a year, mostly the same wardroom, mostly the same crew. The same highly effective 688. Different CO. Different outcome. I shan’t go into details, but we never got off a shot. The after action report indicated we were “killed” no less that 28 times. My most outstanding memory of that “battle” is of the OOD putting #2 scope on max elevation and seeing on the TV monitor only one WHEEL of the LAMPS III bird that was perched over us. Lesson learned. With the right CO you can take a sub into battle with any opponent, and walk out the other side sporting wood. Odds might catch up on you, but you’ll already be a legend. (Ain’t that right Mush?) With the wrong CO, at least they’ll toll the bell for you on Veterans day.
I can verify from personal experience that if a U.S. SSN doesn’t want to be found, it won’t be. It had to be augmented.
Yeh, well, I bet they have that phoney code that enables them to pass the eco test each year.
Eventually Rajeesh will ask you for your credit card number. He'll say, "please verify to me your credit card number." If you ask him why he needs it, Rajeesh will say it's for file security purposes.
Don't do it! Instead, I suggest you put him on hold, then go take a nap.
Maybe, but the new sonic algorithms are using a lot of modern computing power to hear things that couldn’t be heard/processed decades ago...and LA-Class boats are almost half a century old now, too.
There is still the shaft turning, and ventilation, plus some other mechanical operations to maintain depth so it’s not quite that quiet.
Nonetheless, it’s all buried, oftentimes, under a thick rubber skin or some other soundproofing.
As you suggest, much more difficult to detect via noise.
Oh yeah, believe me, while I’m not a submariner, I have enough technical background to reasonably well understand the various systems that would be running. “Listen to your battery” was very tongue-in-cheek, but worthwhile in making people think of how quiet a boat on batteries might be, vs. one with a running nuclear plant.
It's not the batteries that make noise. Nuclear submarines have batteries too by the way. The battery bank on a nuclear submarine is about the size of a tractor trailer.
They can provide propulsion on battery power alone, just like a diesel submarine. You can shut down the reactor and steam plants, run off the batteries, and hell even go to snorkel depth to recharge the batteries with the diesel. But you're not going to be able to go very fast.
But the LA boats are old. I read that the follow up class of Seawolf boats were supposedly quieter at 20 knots than the LA boats were tied to the pier with the reactor shut down. Not sure if that's possible, but that's what I read. (They only made three Seawolf class subs and are now on the Virginia class.)
Another thing I read is that Ohio class SSBNs, which are only slightly less old than the LA class SSNs, are quieter than the background noise of the ocean. Supposedly they are found by looking for "holes" in the noise. Again, not sure if that's possible or a bunch of BS.
#7 Honda did beat the 911 : )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxn8fl8dC6E
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.