3 ms·

I've heard that US nuclear subs actually take the crown, but the design is so secret, that there's no way to verify.

by ChrisMarshallNY 6mo ago

pfortuny 6mo ago
An aircraft carrier would like a word.
- ChrisMarshallNY 6mo ago
  Depends. Are the aircraft counted? In either case, the secret design has the same effect, but sub secrets are the top of the top of top secret. Spies that leak sub secrets, spend a long time in Leavenworth.
- kryogen1c 6mo ago
  >> nuclear sub >aircraft carrier Having served on both, this is actually a pretty interesting comparison (at least to me). Carriers are simply larger, so they likely win by scale, but im not sure on a more per-(sub)system basis. Carriers have a lot of aircraft handling systems that subs dont, elevators and hangers. Also the carrier has group c&c stuff. Subs have a lot of stealth systems carriers don't, being that they're visible from space. Lots of dive related stuff, o2/co2 handlers. They both have weapons systems, hvac, propulsion, distillation, steam generators, reactors, air compressor, many others. Not obvious to me which one is more complex!
  - phist_mcgee 6mo ago
    Which did you enjoy serving on more? Submariners apparently eat better than anywhere else on the navy, but also don't get any sunlight for 6 months?
  - pfortuny 6mo ago
    Wow, I could not imagine getting this response from someone with real experience! Thanks!!
GuB-42 6mo ago
I doubt that anything in the military is that advanced or complex, including nuclear subs. A big part of it is the secrecy itself. Things get difficult when you can't communicate. Your pool of candidates for the job is limited: you may not want people with foreign connections, some people don't want to work for the military, don't like the paperwork, don't like the idea that they can't value their skills for another job, etc... In addition, military technology is supposed to work on the battlefield, you don't want delicate stuff there, you want rugged, repairable, proven, reliable. I think the reason secret military stuff appear so advanced, besides the aura it projects, is that it deals with fields that are underrepresented outside of the military. Like stealth for instance. Stealth is of limited use outside of a conflict. So of course, the stealth package of a nuclear submarine will be much more advanced than the almost nonexistant civilian stealth technology. But for things that are relevant to civilians, like the reactors, engines, etc.., I am sure that what's in subs is relatively simple, and probably dated.
- SR2Z 6mo ago
  > But for things that are relevant to civilians, like the reactors, engines, etc.., I am sure that what's in subs is relatively simple, and probably dated. It seems like submarine propeller designs are all classified past 1960, even though quiet and efficient propellers pretty relevant to civilian ship design: https://n5dux.com/taming/ https://n5dux.com/taming/ The thing about military stuff is that generally the budget is large and the goal is to design something better than what the enemy has. The civilian world for a long time wasn't willing to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on ASICs to control phased-array radars; the military was. Now as a result of lots of military investment, the technology is so well-understood that Google put a phased array on a chip inside the front of the Pixel 5. > In addition, military technology is supposed to work on the battlefield, you don't want delicate stuff there, you want rugged, repairable, proven, reliable. What you want is stuff that wins fights, and it only needs to be repairable and reliable insofar as it wins fights. The US has the F-22, which is an ultra expensive jet that only has ~60% uptime. In war games, it achieves kill ratios of 100:1, so the military is more than happy to keep it around. When the US raided Osama bin Laden's compound they sent brand new stealth helicopters even though they knew the platform was less reliable.
- 6mo ago

I've heard that US nuclear subs actually take the crown, but the design is so secret, that there's no way to verify.

pfortuny 6mo ago

An aircraft carrier would like a word.

ChrisMarshallNY 6mo ago
Depends. Are the aircraft counted? In either case, the secret design has the same effect, but sub secrets are the top of the top of top secret. Spies that leak sub secrets, spend a long time in Leavenworth.
kryogen1c 6mo ago
>> nuclear sub >aircraft carrier Having served on both, this is actually a pretty interesting comparison (at least to me). Carriers are simply larger, so they likely win by scale, but im not sure on a more per-(sub)system basis. Carriers have a lot of aircraft handling systems that subs dont, elevators and hangers. Also the carrier has group c&c stuff. Subs have a lot of stealth systems carriers don't, being that they're visible from space. Lots of dive related stuff, o2/co2 handlers. They both have weapons systems, hvac, propulsion, distillation, steam generators, reactors, air compressor, many others. Not obvious to me which one is more complex!
- phist_mcgee 6mo ago
  Which did you enjoy serving on more? Submariners apparently eat better than anywhere else on the navy, but also don't get any sunlight for 6 months?
- pfortuny 6mo ago
  Wow, I could not imagine getting this response from someone with real experience! Thanks!!

GuB-42 6mo ago

I doubt that anything in the military is that advanced or complex, including nuclear subs. A big part of it is the secrecy itself. Things get difficult when you can't communicate. Your pool of candidates for the job is limited: you may not want people with foreign connections, some people don't want to work for the military, don't like the paperwork, don't like the idea that they can't value their skills for another job, etc... In addition, military technology is supposed to work on the battlefield, you don't want delicate stuff there, you want rugged, repairable, proven, reliable. I think the reason secret military stuff appear so advanced, besides the aura it projects, is that it deals with fields that are underrepresented outside of the military. Like stealth for instance. Stealth is of limited use outside of a conflict. So of course, the stealth package of a nuclear submarine will be much more advanced than the almost nonexistant civilian stealth technology. But for things that are relevant to civilians, like the reactors, engines, etc.., I am sure that what's in subs is relatively simple, and probably dated.

SR2Z 6mo ago
> But for things that are relevant to civilians, like the reactors, engines, etc.., I am sure that what's in subs is relatively simple, and probably dated. It seems like submarine propeller designs are all classified past 1960, even though quiet and efficient propellers pretty relevant to civilian ship design: https://n5dux.com/taming/ https://n5dux.com/taming/ The thing about military stuff is that generally the budget is large and the goal is to design something better than what the enemy has. The civilian world for a long time wasn't willing to blow hundreds of thousands of dollars on ASICs to control phased-array radars; the military was. Now as a result of lots of military investment, the technology is so well-understood that Google put a phased array on a chip inside the front of the Pixel 5. > In addition, military technology is supposed to work on the battlefield, you don't want delicate stuff there, you want rugged, repairable, proven, reliable. What you want is stuff that wins fights, and it only needs to be repairable and reliable insofar as it wins fights. The US has the F-22, which is an ultra expensive jet that only has ~60% uptime. In war games, it achieves kill ratios of 100:1, so the military is more than happy to keep it around. When the US raided Osama bin Laden's compound they sent brand new stealth helicopters even though they knew the platform was less reliable.
6mo ago