second hand US nuclear sub. for Romania???

Tomcat if you don't watch your language I will tell everyone about your internet and putter

Well duh, I knew that.
At the time I didnt have info so I only said a sea of 422,000km2 must have a huge volume of water.
The Black Sea volume is 550,000km3.

Right, but apparently the Sturgeon's maximum depth is 400 meters. So even if placed in a deep Ocean or the Med, its max. depth would be the same.
The center of the Black Sea has depths of 2000 meters peaking at 2210 meters.
Even if in some Ocean the depths could be larger, 400m would still be the limit in both cases.

I know I'm coming in late to this debate, but some comments were made that I can't resist responding to.

Some have expressed the idea that a nuclear sub is necessarily more "modern" than a diesel-electric sub. That's not necessarily the case, not at all. As some have pointed out, USN Sturgeons are 3 generations old now. The only real advantages that I'm aware of that nuclear subs have is the ability for sustained high speed, and sustained submerged operations. There might be some times when a sub in the Black Sea would need the second of these, but the first? Never, IMHO.

I had some friends in a former job who were former USN P-3 maritime patrol aircrew. They had trained extensively with both diesel-electric and nuclear subs. They said the diesel-electrics were almost impossible to find. You had to either see the snorkel with your radar when it was recharging its batteries (not likely) or get very lucky and fly right over the sub and detect it with the magnetic anomaly detector (even less likely). The nuclear subs made lots of noise when they ran at the highest speeds (this was the 1970s) and even when they were running quiet, or sitting still, the noise of the pumps was always there.

I would say purchase of a (or operation of a free) surplus SSN is evidence that Romania's naval establishment had gone mad. 2 SSKs can do anything you would realistically need to do, and at a fraction of the cost. Wealthier countries with much more demanding naval requirements (e.g. Japan, Italy, Spain, India, Taiwan) don't operate SSNs.

Roger Victor

anyway... the information about decommisioned sub as being a Sturgeon class might be wrong. US Navy had decommioned also Los Angeles Class Nuclear attack submarines also.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-688.htm

This post has been edited by tomcat1974 on March 31, 2006 09:26 am

This is just an unconfirmd rumour for now. Maybe a way of preparing public opinion for other purchases. You know like in saying OK if you think a second hand SSN would be too expensive and a bad deal then we'll buy 2 new SSKs. It kind of reduces the reaction to the latter purchase in view of the spending blunder alternative.

And from what I've read here the diesel subs are very tough while the nuclear ones are noisy and clumsy. Then why do the world powers build SSNs when they could build hordes of diesel subs with improved autonomy (by using "cows" for example)?
As for an SSN in the Black Sea, I think its also important what it can do offensively. Even if it is too big as some say or too noisy, if it can outmaneuver, outspeed or "outdetect" a diesel sub or a ship then it should be ok.

take care

indeed.. we are lead by such subtle men

Maybe that's it. Neutralize opposition to doing something unnecessary by threatening to do something seriously crazy.

I think that's an oversimplification. Diesel subs can be very hard to detect, and can carry the same weapons as SSNs. But there are plenty of situations where SSNs have big advantages. Let's say, hypothetically, you are Britain, and Argentina has invaded the Falkland Islands. You need to do a long, open-ocean transit to get some force on the scene to intimidate the Argentine navy. An SSN is perfect for this. (Substitute "US, China, and Taiwan" if you want a future example). Need to chase SSBNs under the Arctic ice? An SSN is the "weapon of choice". It's just that Romania is unlikely to face this sort of situation. World powers build SSNs because they want to be able to project power worldwide, or at least outside their region. And almost all of them also build non-nuclear subs too.

Speed is of limited tactical value to submarines. Even at 30-35-40 knots, you're not faster than a torpedo, or a helicopter, or a fixed-wing patrol aircraft. And actually travelling at that high speed just makes you a target. And you can't rely on "outdetecting" the modern diesel sub... it can carry the same sensors, and it's probably quieter too.

whis is a joke!!!
today is 1 april!!!

This is NOT a joke !

So are you the guy who wrote the article? For real?

If he really is, he can tell us some more details?

Iama