The only problem with going 125 kts is that you can be at periscope depth in less than (3) seconds
and test depth in less than (10) seconds ... :yep:

It's in fact 12.5 kts, I missed it too...:yep:

I dont think anyone including america could match the number the soviet union had at the hieght.

In the hight of cold war russia had 553 submarines and over 250 were nuclear powered the most america has had is 150 (these are active service submarines)

Maybe its 1.25. Any guess is as good as any other.

That is where the April 1 comes into play?

Kilos can do better than 12.5 knots. Still, they can't do 125 knots. The truth must lie in between.

Of course, what if they could do 125 knots, and dive to 10,000 ft, and shoot torpedoes from the other side of the Pacific? That'd be pretty rad. In fact, that's what I'm going with. Someone contact Janes.

25 knots?
Sounds too fast to me, but maybe they can make short sprints with 25 knots.

Good point...:hmm:

That's a really cool figure but I think it's a little misleading. It makes no distinction about quality or capability of subs beyond nuclear/non-nuclear; this is probably not so important because I think most nations that have been operating noisy unsafe tubs (China is coming to mind) have been learning a lot. Still, the numbers only tell part of the story.

Re: the Kilo - I think 12.5 is what they meant to put. Most of the websites out there peg the Kilo's surface speed at somewhere around that figure. They do go faster underwater.

Where are the U.S.'s planned subs?

US submarines spell quality to me ... of course I am a little prejudice, but I think our country has a higher standard of living to account for that fact.

They just authorized and bumped the ship building capability of US nuclear submarines up to two a year. That comes to around 4.5 billion dollars for two of them. The only problem is that they are putting them out of service faster than they are in service.

That article DAB has sure would make a nice start for a sub sim even if it doesn't represent a war, yet.

Bugger the US's planned subs, where are the australian planned subs?? oh wait, thats right, we needa actually get some crews to man the subs we have first.

Similar vein to the thread on our new air warfare destroyers, right now it might not seem like we have much of an enemy to face off against. give it 10, maybe 20 years, we'll have 2 - indonesia and china. thank christ these 2 will never see eye to eye against the west... they both hate and loathe us but their history and way of thinking means that they hate each other just as much.

So, sure, right now the Indonesians, NK and Chinese are having to bail water out of boats when they wanna surface, but given a little time and a lot of kilos (thanks ivan :)) they will become quite formidable forces. we're in trouble.

What Australia needs is some nuclear weapon capabilty ... WWII is over.

Submarines are nice, but if the enemy uses them against you, just nuke em. :know:

Till they glow...:lol:

and whats that s'posed to mean ?:doh:

Not sure what she means either, but I had a friend that use to get drunk and tell everyone off. You know like come up to you in a bar during happy hour and point at you and say, "I never liked you".

He made a mistake one day and did it to his boss. :lol:

Maybe that's what she means ???

President Bush and Maggie Thatcher must be sad at the loss of their "Peace Dividend."