daver852 
|
Actually, diesel submarines are much quieter than nuclear-powered submarines. They probably could be detected if enough effort were expended.
Reply #1. Sep 10 12, 4:16 PM
|
| Greatguggly
|
Bernard being such a big Beatles fan, the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw this was..."We all live in narco submarine".
Reply #2. Sep 11 12, 5:18 AM
|
| houston1127
|
Money. There is a lot of money being made off the illegal drug trade. Who wouldn't doubt that the CIA, DEA, US Customs, Dept of Homeland Security, local law enforcement, politicians, policy wonks, etc, all have agents or members who "look the other way" for a chunk of money? I would do it. Ans so would Daver. Plus, there's the whole theory that world intelligence agencies (especially the CIA) are behind the drug trade already, so it is no surprise that they wouldn't catch their own submarines.
Reply #3. Sep 11 12, 5:31 AM
|
| Greatguggly
|
"...til we found a sea of green"...many more of them live next door.."
Reply #4. Sep 11 12, 5:53 AM
|
boxjaw
|
daver. Diesel submarines are NOT quieter than nuclear submarines. Never have, never will. Especially considering that the idiots that wrote their ideas on stealth under the seas don't seem to understand the depths that these submarines reach and depth temperature. The milling of the screws (highly classified) that those subs use are quite extraordinary in what they do beside moving the boat. If Diesel/electric was a better choice, the US Navy would be building them now.
I'm still confused as to why these primitive boats (and they really are boats that submerge for a little while. They're not true submarines) are so hard to track!
Submarines don't even need to be used to track those jalopies! The current ASW capabilities are more than adequate to deal with this threat.
Freaks me out!
Reply #5. Sep 11 12, 10:32 AM
|
daver852
|
Boxjaw, having served in the submarine service, I can tell you that diesel boats ARE quieter - that's why the Navy kept some diesel boats in service into the 1970s. Diesel boats don't require reduction gears; that's where most of a nuke sub's noise come from.
Reply #6. Sep 13 12, 2:32 PM
|
boxjaw
|
My apologies daver. I hadn't expected the quietness of the electric motor. That being said. The US Navy still really doesn't have that much of an issue at tracking adversaries. Diesels have to surface sometime. I'm pretty confident in the Navy's capabilities.
I served with a corporal while stationed at Merrell Barracks FRG, whose brother was a Lieutenant that was killed on the USS Bonefish after the sub suffered a fire. She was one of the last conventional submarines that was in commission when the accident occurred in 1988.
Reply #8. Sep 14 12, 6:53 AM
|
boxjaw
|
I would also think that these 'boats' that the criminals are using aren't up to the technological standards of any submarine used today. Just look at the photo. This particular submersible looks like the USS Monitor! Well almost.
Freaks me out!
Reply #9. Sep 14 12, 8:52 AM
|
romeomikegolf
|
"I'm still confused as to why these primitive boats (and they really are boats that submerge for a little while. They're not true submarines) are so hard to track!"
According to your own link these boats can travel from Ecuador to LA without surfacing.
The US is not the all seeing all knowing entity you seem to think it is. If it was 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
Reply #10. Sep 16 12, 12:19 PM
|
boxjaw
|
RMG. They still are by and large primitive boats. Doesn't matter one bit that they don't have to surface during their run. I think the problem is they are not being tracked by the right people. The US Navy shouldn't have a problem at all with that job. I would think that decades of practice and diligence at the task of tracking a most potent submarine fleet, that being the Soviet Union's, capable of delivering nuclear warheads on any city in the free world should be proof enough that the US can handle this task.
I never said the US was an all seeing, all knowing entity. That's why we have allies we can depend on. The defensive capabilities of my country are pretty darn good though.
Hard military technology isn't going to be the first step at stopping tragedies like 11 September 2001, or 11 March 2004, or 7 July 2005. That belongs to other realms of national security that are not being debated at this time.
I'll say again, I don't understand why any US ASW should have a problem catching these criminals. Maybe the US should think about relocating some of it's military assets closer to shore and let the rest of NATO learn about using more of their assets instead of the token deployments they favor.
Reply #11. Sep 17 12, 11:10 AM
|
weissmarc
|
Tracking anything is made easier when you have some kind of search parameters. The locations of major naval bases and the routes that the fleets use are fairly well-known and watched by anything from satellites to "fishing trawlers". The narco subs are operating from areas most likely not under the same surveillance as the military generally keeps tabs on- it helps to know which haystack to start looking in. With the amount of money involved it isn't hard to imagine how easy it is for officials to be bribed/coerced/intimidated into looking the other way in small coastal regions that may not attract a lot of attention in the first place.
Reply #12. Sep 17 12, 11:28 AM
|
boxjaw
|
Understood. But I would think that we have boots on the ground in the general areas where this activity is taking place. Satellite technology would also drastically reduce the issue of locating these 'submarine marvels'. There are only a finite amount of locations where they can be launched. I think that could be found out pretty quickly.
Reply #13. Sep 17 12, 11:34 AM
|
boxjaw
|
Also as far as tracking. Of course US Navy knew where these Soviet submarines launched from. Maybe even knew when they would leave. The task that was performed brilliantly was tracking in the open oceans. How far off track are these 'underwater cocaine tubs' going to stray from home base to final destination?
Reply #14. Sep 17 12, 11:38 AM
|
|
14 replies. On page 1 of
1 page(s).
1
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: 