Re: Wasn't that a bad Polish joke?

In article <4n7am1dcot0gl9hatjmhrn3jn3t3vq4d9e@xxxxxxx>,
Marilee J. Layman <mjlayman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 29 Oct 2005 20:54:36 -0500, tmcd@xxxxxxxxx (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
>
> >In article <olf7m1d6oifmv800uc7v5kgr6f5krflasm@xxxxxxx>,
> >Marilee J. Layman <mjlayman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 00:30:10 -0400, Howard S Shubs <howard@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <djtvvd$hum$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> >>> tmcd@xxxxxxxxx (Tim McDaniel) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Navy: Japan to open door to nuclear sub
> >>>> Note: "sub", not "aircraft carrier". So it was "worse" because it
> >>>> showed more incompetence.
> >>>
> >>>I guess I'm not seeing it. Oh, you mean the reporting sucks?
> >>
> >>No,
> >
> >Yes, I did indeed mean that "the reporting sucks": I was pointing out
> >that the link said "sub" when the story said "aircraft carrier".
> >
> >>he's assuming the sub is under water at the time. You don't open
> >>doors to subs when they're under water.
> >
> >Even on the surface, I don't think it's practicing safe sub to leave
> >the door open, because I suspect (pace, Indiana Jones) modern US subs
> >don't travel as much on the surface as World War II boats, frex.
>
> How do you think they get in and out of the sub?

Many US nuclear submarines (and presumably those of England, France, and
what's left of the Russian fleet that's still operational...) dive on
leaving harbor, and don't surface until they return at the end of their
mission. Modern nuclear subs can operate for months submerged. They're
also far faster and more quiet underwater than on the surface. Modern
passive sonar and the ability to deploy recon bouys to the surface means
they don't need to surface to engage targets.

A WWII diesel sub ran on the surface (or just below, with the snorkle up
for air and exhaust) most of the time, and only dove to attack or escape
from attack. They were also _much_ faster on the surface than they were
submerged (where they ran off batteries charged while running on the
surface). Their air treatment capability was also poor, and they could
only stay submerged for a day or less. Also, they generally had to be
surfaced for navigation and spotting targets and threats.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sim development help #1: Argonauts
    ... sim i'm developing for my sim group (ST:FAB, ... Ohio-class sub. ... How did your sub get to the water world? ... they may be able to up the impulse engines. ...
    (rec.arts.startrek.tech)
  • Re: "Supercavitating torpedo"
    ... the sub cutting through the water as it formed the bubble, so you would be sailing completely blind with no idea what was ahead of you. ... Shkval apparently gets around this by being fired in the direction of the target, dropping to sub-cavitating speed, locking itself on target via a active sonar when at close range, and then re-accelerating to cavitation speed and hitting its prey. ... the water under rocket propulsion while wrapped in its supercavitation bubble would echo off the target like a active sonar beam, and allow its position to be determined by the launching submarine. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: news of the week
    ... but just imagine being stuck down in a sub. ... even worse if it's under water. ... totally freaking over it. ...
    (rec.games.computer.ultima.dragons)
  • Re: taper works
    ... > slower and maybe I could have absorbed enough water to avoid cramping, ... I think it's really a bit much to characterise a sub 3 ... I really thought I was going to negative split the race ...
    (rec.running)
  • Re: A U-boat goes beyond crush depth...what happens next?
    ... temperature of just about all the combustible materials inside the sub. ... A gradual rise in pressure from flooding won't ... give you a Diesel effect. ... Also a compartment filled with an aerosol of water droplets (quite ...
    (sci.military.naval)