1 posted on
12/23/2007 9:04:50 PM PST by
Wiz
To: Jeff Head
2 posted on
12/23/2007 9:05:09 PM PST by
Wiz
To: Wiz
This gives non-nuclear boats the same underwater endurance edge that nuclear powered boats have long possessed.No, it doesn't.
3 posted on
12/23/2007 9:13:57 PM PST by
PAR35
To: Wiz
4 posted on
12/23/2007 9:18:25 PM PST by
llevrok
( "In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is freedom. In water, there is bacteria." - Ben Franklin)
To: Wiz
A week is a bit less than six months.
6 posted on
12/23/2007 9:26:58 PM PST by
Doctor Raoul
(Columbia = Ayatollah U.)
To: Wiz
Nuclear can stay down for 6 months, maybe a lot longer if it has to.
OTOH, a week may very well be "good enough" for 99.9% of all real needs.
Sounds like a very destabilizing technology to me. A lot of second tier countries are now able to match the capabilities of major powers.
Especially since it looks like a week is more than good enough for a surprise attack or to thwart the fleet of a major power far from home. Think about how the Falkland Islands war might have turned out if Argentina had even two or three of these.
9 posted on
12/23/2007 11:19:01 PM PST by
CurlyDave
To: Wiz
I have been watching Pakistan develop there Augusta 90B with interest for several years. How quiet are these boats? Can we easily detect them? Obviously Osama wants the whole shebang and all that means.
If this is general knowledge I’d like to know.
10 posted on
12/23/2007 11:57:02 PM PST by
captain anode
("love it or leave it" Ramsey is a bottom feeder.)
To: Wiz
15 posted on
01/01/2008 4:36:00 PM PST by
Sub-Driver
(Proud member of the Republican wing of the Republican Party)
To: Wiz
“This gives non-nuclear boats the same underwater endurance edge that nuclear powered boats have long possessed.”
Some how, the numbers don’t quite add up
1 week =/- 6 +/- months
16 posted on
01/01/2008 4:37:50 PM PST by
roaddog727
(BS does not get bridges built)
To: Pan_Yan
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson