4 ms·

This guy's premise is that submarines are going to lose their stealthy advantage. He is not qualified to say that, and the technology he mentions could become a

This guy's premise is that submarines are going to lose their stealthy advantage. He is not qualified to say that, and the technology he mentions could become a threat to subs has been talked about for 20+ years. There is not much danger that these new technologies will be able to detect a sub in our lifetime. I acknowledge that technology will require subs to become even more quiet, but new propulsion systems are now on the boats instead of propellers. They are quieter than ever and no one could detect us before. Subs have already become “carriers” of SEALS and rockets. So that mission can only be expanded. Not much new in the article. Edit: Source: US Navy submarine nuclear reactor officer, 20+ years

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>He is not qualified to say that, What about Bryan Clark? Is he? http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/01/23/submarines-warfare-undersea-technology-navy-csba/22221565/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/20... >There is not much danger that these new technologies will be able to detect a sub in our lifetime. Really? Are you qualified to say that?
- bubbleHead 12y ago
  Source: US Navy submarine nuclear reactor officer, 20+ years
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    I don't know you, nor do I know Clark, or any of the others, >>"We need to think about a new strategy for undersea warfare," said Bryan Clark, a former submariner and Navy strategist now with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. This Clark guy, writing for DefenseNews claims to have been on a sub, and a place named the CSBA hired him. The trouble here is that I can't see why I should take either of yours or their assertions at face value. I don't know what their angle is, nor yours.
binky56 12y ago
If you really where a 20+ year submariner then you should already know the screw is not the loudest thing onboard by a long shot. Also if you bothered to read the full article they are not using just sound to detect. Granted this would only pertain to some of the current fast attack missions in regards to some countries. SEAL delivery is a relatively close up mission considering how big the ocean is.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

>He is not qualified to say that, What about Bryan Clark? Is he? http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/01/23/submarines-warfare-undersea-technology-navy-csba/22221565/ http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/20... >There is not much danger that these new technologies will be able to detect a sub in our lifetime. Really? Are you qualified to say that?

bubbleHead 12y ago
Source: US Navy submarine nuclear reactor officer, 20+ years
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  I don't know you, nor do I know Clark, or any of the others, >>"We need to think about a new strategy for undersea warfare," said Bryan Clark, a former submariner and Navy strategist now with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. This Clark guy, writing for DefenseNews claims to have been on a sub, and a place named the CSBA hired him. The trouble here is that I can't see why I should take either of yours or their assertions at face value. I don't know what their angle is, nor yours.

binky56 12y ago

If you really where a 20+ year submariner then you should already know the screw is not the loudest thing onboard by a long shot. Also if you bothered to read the full article they are not using just sound to detect. Granted this would only pertain to some of the current fast attack missions in regards to some countries. SEAL delivery is a relatively close up mission considering how big the ocean is.