3 ms·
This seems like a pretty expensive solution. We're supposed to spend $20 million on every potentially hostile sub? And that's just to track them since the shi
by cameldrv 10y ago
This seems like a pretty expensive solution. We're supposed to spend $20 million on every potentially hostile sub? And that's just to track them since the ship is "for now unarmed." What if we tagged them when we started tracking? Would attaching something to another country's sub be considered an act of war? We could attach an acoustic transponder, maybe a very low power spread-spectrum one that would be hard to detect, perhaps even designed to automatically detach from the boat when the boat surfaced, with thrusters that doubled as generators when the boat was moving. Charge the battery up while moving, when stopped near the surface, dive to avoid detection, then reattach when the boat starts moving again...
- geezerjay 10y ago> We're supposed to spend $20 million on every potentially hostile sub? Nowadays an M1 Abrams tank costs around $8 million. This means that for the price of 3 tanks, they can track and ultimately destroy an enemy asset that costs around $800 million new, can't be replaced, and can destroy an entire fleet of billion-dollar ships. The expense is well justified. Now, if only the US didn't kept wasting billions of dollars in assets that can be destroyed by any navy with a diesel electric sub.
- noir_lord 10y agoGiven that the buy cost of a 100 of these is less than a single carrier and in the ballpark of two SSN's it actually seems like a bargain.