Jump to content

In other news...


tkdguy
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Cygnia said:

Police bias is well known. Her boyfriend didn't report her, drove home with her van, refused to speak with the cops about it, and at last report fled from Florida. Automatically he looks guilty, even if an accident had happened. The fact that he may have done this in a serial killer's operating area is a different thing

CES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2021 at 6:27 AM, archer said:

That kind of price gouging will always upset a customer, even if you're delivering on time...which the French weren't.

 

 

The new subs won't have that problem, since both their price and delivery times are unknown.

 

I've seen it suggested that AUKUS would be better named USUKA, pronounced "you sucker".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2021 at 5:42 PM, assault said:

I am not saying he is Wrong...but, there are some flaws in what he is saying. The numbers in particular, he lists the French sub contract to be from 30 to 90 Billion, then winges that a modern attack sub can be had for 3 Billion each? I don't disagree that Australia would be well served by conventional subs, but building up infrastructure is more than "pork". And if Australia sees a need to build up a atomic power knowlage base this is one way to get it. And the capacity of a nuke sub is vastly greater than a conventional. So that is a positive factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2021 at 6:42 PM, assault said:

 

Quote

The Australians seem enamored at being members of the big boy (nuclear) club, but as with most ambitious social climbers they are paying a huge cost, one that has not yet dawned on them.

 

I'll grant the ego factor sounds like probably a big chunk of this, but the conclusions are less clear-cut.  And who's to say they won't work on their own nuclear power industry?  

I agree, tho, that their mission profiles probably don't *need* nuclear subs.  Their needs are regional, you'd think...the Philippine Sea, the South China Sea.  Those are relatively close.

 

But hey, this is Australia.  The leaders seem to be unstable in their own quirky ways.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, abortion providers in Texas are asking the Supreme Court for an expedited review of the new abortion law.  From NYT:

 

Quote

The providers said the court should use the procedure to decide what they said was a pressing question: “whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohi­bition through civil actions.”

 

I think it's more plausible they'll take up the question on this basis.  It may well be wishful thinking because if they decline, I'm very much afraid the consequences will be devastating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

And who's to say they won't work on their own nuclear power industry?

 

There's a lot of politics involved in this

 

The current government are coal huggers, but are beginning to realise that the game is up. Naturally, they want a nuclear industry instead of commie hippie solar and wind (despite, you know, Australia being the perfect place for these forms of energy).

 

At the very least they will try to revive the largely moribund uranium mining industry and, being malicious idiots, will probably try to set a radioactive waste dump for the US and UK 

 

It's unlikely that any nuclear power plants will be set up here as the economics doesn't work out, even with massive taxpayer handouts 

 

Not to mention the massive political opposition to all this. The official parliamentary Opposition is lukewarm at best but there are plenty of other people who will organise around this stuff 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

 

I'll grant the ego factor sounds like probably a big chunk of this, but the conclusions are less clear-cut.  And who's to say they won't work on their own nuclear power industry?  

I agree, tho, that their mission profiles probably don't *need* nuclear subs.  Their needs are regional, you'd think...the Philippine Sea, the South China Sea.  Those are relatively close.

 

But hey, this is Australia.  The leaders seem to be unstable in their own quirky ways.... 

 

Well, the South China Sea is relatively close.

 

But conventional subs move more slowly and can't stay in place to patrol as long after they get there.

 

From Australia to the South China Sea, the estimates I've seen is that a conventional diesel sub would only be able to stay there for 11 days maximum before having to turn around and head back home.

 

A nuclear sub, in contrast, could stay on station something like 83 days if I remember correctly.

 

That's a vast gap in the utility between the two types of subs. And that's not even taking into account the fact that nuclear subs can remain completely submerged at operating depth longer than a diesel sub.

 

I could try to find the study again and post it up if anyone is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But (last I heard) a diesel boat can go completely silent for short intervals by turning off everything, which is an option for trying to evade tactical search for the boat.  A nuke boat cannot: the pumps on the reactor coolant cannot be turned off, period, without irreversibly damaging the reactor core.

 

There are also interesting hints about the possibility of locating nuke boats from their neutrino emissions.  I say "hints" because there are some odd comments about neutrino detection in places in the tech literature, and I find it easier to understand those comments if you imagine them coming from people involved in developing neutrino detectors that will work at some level for detecting terrestrial sources ... which are nuclear reactors.  There's absolutely no way of shutting off the neutrino emission from a reactor unless you shut down the reactor completely, and many reactor designs (especially those in ships & subs) won't let you restart if you do shut it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cancer said:

But (last I heard) a diesel boat can go completely silent for short intervals by turning off everything, which is an option for trying to evade tactical search for the boat.

 

I've heard this too  Essentially they run on batteries while submerged 

 

The other trick used during exercises is for the smaller diesel subs to go places where the bigger nuke subs can't. Shallow water, or brown water. Apparently subs aren't supposed to suddenly appear out of nowhere and shout "gotcha!".

 

A somewhat separate question is when drones will start to encroach on the current role of subs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that's a modern myth. While it's true that a conventional sub can go total silence while a nuke has to be able to run it's pumps, the effective difference between a conventional and a nuke sub running silent is nothing in the real world. Ever since the development of anachoic tiling and modern quiet pumps conventional subs haven't had any real advantages.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Cancer said:

But (last I heard) a diesel boat can go completely silent for short intervals by turning off everything, which is an option for trying to evade tactical search for the boat.  A nuke boat cannot: the pumps on the reactor coolant cannot be turned off, period, without irreversibly damaging the reactor core.

 

There are also interesting hints about the possibility of locating nuke boats from their neutrino emissions.  I say "hints" because there are some odd comments about neutrino detection in places in the tech literature, and I find it easier to understand those comments if you imagine them coming from people involved in developing neutrino detectors that will work at some level for detecting terrestrial sources ... which are nuclear reactors.  There's absolutely no way of shutting off the neutrino emission from a reactor unless you shut down the reactor completely, and many reactor designs (especially those in ships & subs) won't let you restart if you do shut it down.

Yes a conventional Fuel cell powered Sub can be insanely silent, and is smaller. So they can be operated in more places at once, as well as shallower water. But nobody who owns a boat ever argues that theirs is smaller! Lol. But modern nuclear attack subs are far more capable than most folks know. It really comes down to power projection. Conventional boats are tied to shore, and are vulnerable to attacks on the support buildings. A nuke can project power far from shore, and operate for extended periods. I don't think Neutrino detection is a threat, so far we can't detect neutrinos from the Sun with good results...;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Simon locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...