Posted on 04/20/2007 9:17:16 AM PDT by Fennie
we have been very fortunate both in not having a lot of losses, but also of having the skilled workers at Electric Boat who can build subs strong enough to hit undersea mountains and remain afloat.
This headline reallh isn’t accurate. The US
has lost more subs than most are aware of.
Including one that had recently (at the time)
reported a Soviet Task Force, where one
wasn’t supposed to be.
gured out why Mexican subs sink. Adobe melts under water.
.....Bob
Three words:
Safe Sub Program
Instituted in the 60’s (I believe) following several accidents. Reengineered the US Navy sub program with a emphasis on safety above all. Largely credited as a great success in technical and cultural change leading to amazing improvement.
Besides SSN-711, what was the other recent collision?
Greenville SSN 772, Feb. 9, 2001 with Ehime-maru.
You know, you get a lot when you google submarine collision:
San Juan and the Kentucky in 1998.
La Jolla sank a South Korean ship in 1998
Grayling hit a Russian sub in 1993 (American sub scrapped, Russian sub repaired)
Baton Rouge hit a Russian sub in 1992
The Augusta may have hit a Russian sub in 1998
PING
National Geographic, or maybe Discovery Channel had an interesting show on the history of submarines and ballistic missiles, recently. Some of the central points were that while they jury-rigged Sputnik into orbit earlier that the U.S., their technology aptitude wasn't nearly as capable. We learned to miniaturize, which was a huge benefit, but the Soviet philosophy has always been larger and more inefficient. Not that they were striving for inefficiency, they didn't have the technology or capability to do otherwise.
Case in point, we launched the Nautilus first. From a hull design, the world's first nuclear sub looked a lot like conventional diesel subs. Soon after that, we recognized that nuclear subs needed a different hull design, one that was designed to be underwater...streamlined, and built for speed and silence.
On the other hand, the Soviets had three or four submarine classes before they caught up to us in hull design. Why? Because they were so hell-bent on trying to build a nuclear submarine, they weren't thinking about things like speed...or silence...or safety.
The Alpha class--which came about in the 1970's--was among the Soviets fastest sub, probably faster than any of ours. Sure, it was fast, but it was incredibly noisy at speed.
In the 1980's, the Soviets figured out that "silence was golden," once they learned they could spy for, and steal technology; it was a lot easier than developing it on your own.
And trainin’. Our aviators spend more hours in the air, our sailors more hours at sea. That makes up a big part of the difference.
“The more ya sweat in peacetime, the less ya bleed during wartime.”
Ping
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.