Re: Space crews and solar flares. was Re: Space carrier fighter p hilosphyRe: ADLER TAG AAR
From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 10:09:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Space crews and solar flares. was Re: Space carrier fighter p hilosphyRe: ADLER TAG AAR
I heard this same story a number of years ago as told by a friend in the
Canadian Navy, except that it was one of the old Canadian
subs and it snuck into the USS America carrier battlegroup to sink the
I wonder if the whole thing isn't an urban legend / myth created by we
countries with wee navies to poke fun at the Americans... Maybe it was
the Swedes - they are supposed to be deploying some of the most advanced
submarine technology around (subs without conning tower using chemical
cell power systems for extend underwater operations, etc etc)
On the other hand - countries like Britain and the US rely on their
allies like Canada and Australia to help them with realistic training -
have conventional subs and they don't, and the Russians are furiously
selling off ex-Soviet navy equipment (like conventional subs, etc - hey
they sold nuke attack subs to Iran) to countries the US might have to
with... We get to simulate the bad guys, and these training exercises
going on all the time. Maybe it actually happened as described for both
the Can. and Aus. subs?
At 12:26 AM 10/23/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Ahh that is an entirely different (And plausible) scenario.
>Glover, Owen wrote:
>> I think Paul O'Grady may be able to add some confirmation to this
>> (after all he is a RAN Officer and knows crews off the vessel in
>> As Paul described it to me it was on an excercise at sea (not in
>> that teh subamrine was able to 'sneak' into the centre of the 'enemy'
>> > prop. Sometimes old tech is and advantage. One of the Australian
>> > "Oberon"
>> > class subs entered the boomer base in Seattle without anyone,
>> > particularly
>> > the Yanks knowing about it until it surfaced. The Russians have
>> > continued
>> > to use values in much of their military electronic gear because it
>> > less
>> > vulernable to EMP (electro magnetic pluse) effects which is
>> > what
>> > you get during a solar flare or exploding a suitable nuke in orbit.
>> This is, umm, how should I say, an "urban legend". If you've ever
>> any time around any harbor then you know no skipper would ever
>> such an iresponsible hazordous activity in shallow waters in
>> but the most dire of consequences. Most of the harbor where the sub
>> lies is in less than 30 feet of water except for a few channels. He
>> would have been cashiered by the Australian Navy at the least for
>> such a thing. The run in to Puguet sound is very heavily trafficed
>> all manner of ships and subs don't even submerge until they're a half
>> day out or longer. Even at Groton, Subs don't submerge until they're
>> almost a day out and off the continental shelf.
>> Regardless, it is true that diesel boats are ingherently quieter than
>> nukes. My original comment was a JOKE.
>> Los <g>