Why are SSBNs so Quiet?

[Kapitan]

say in 25 years time france pays off all its SSBN's and a rouge state in africa starts building nuclear missiles and weapons and the people building those weapons hate the french and thier allies for something they done in the past (britain and france had collonies in africa)

so this is pay back time and they would nuke france but heres the catch.

not wanting to be totaly destroyed them selves if france had SSBN's and nuclear weapons it disuades them guys from launching its the power of dissuasion

today as anyother day its the same no one knows who there enamiy is going to be in 5 10 100 years

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

3 hulls each motorised engine huh dont understand last part

each motor is mounted on silent block, real separate hull from the second hull, surrounding the submarine
and there is another hull sourounding this
this make 3 noise separation for each noisy device
world record

[Kapitan]

ahhh i see now yes like the triple hulled dolpijn class i dont know much about the new SSBN's but the old ones are noisey (as they all are with age) thats what i was kinda quoting on

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

say in 25 years time france pays off all its SSBN's and a rouge state in africa starts building nuclear missiles and weapons and the people building those weapons hate the french and thier allies for something they done in the past (britain and france had collonies in africa)

so this is pay back time and they would nuke france but heres the catch.

not wanting to be totaly destroyed them selves if france had SSBN's and nuclear weapons it disuades them guys from launching its the power of dissuasion

today as anyother day its the same no one knows who there enamiy is going to be in 5 10 100 years

you are also a dinosaurus
your strategy principle are totally outdated, you live in the old world, Kapitain

fast projection forces is the key today, nuclear dissuasion is just obsolete from end of cold war.

[Kapitan]

from 1946 to 2005 not one single nuclear divice has been dropped on an enamy and there were plenty of excuses and oppotunities

the only people who dont care about them are terrorists cause they play hide and seek binladen example but many established countrys like iran and north korea wont nuke america or any allies because they know its total annilation for them so what does stop them ?

certainly not a strongly worded letter from the president / prime minister is it

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

ahhh i see now yes like the triple hulled dolpijn class i dont know much about the new SSBN's but the old ones are noisey (as they all are with age) thats what i was kinda quoting on

it's not the dolphin class !!
it's the SNLE-NG
sous marin nucleaire lanceur d'engin de nouvelle génération

the silent block came from an industrial research
First, they was designated for special very heavy truck, very smooth to absorbate roads hole.
But they was so sophisticated and so expensive research was stopped ... and military start to be interested about it.
Some funny story about ...

[Kapitan]

oh my life no i was meaning on par which means kinda similar to not exact copy dear me acctualy forget explaining this one i got a few better things to do than argue a pointless point

and second part

i can unserstand that one just

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Kapitain

established countrys like iran and north korea wont nuke america or any allies because they know its total annilation for them so what does stop them ?

the only really threatening country today, technically speaking, is China

north corea don't have capable vector (only 6000km)
Iran don't have nuclear bomb, and only have small vectors (3000km)
only China, with SSBN, can do a nuclear attack on western countries.

..... what for ??
there is no threat whit China at this time (except for the taiwan problem, but no nuclear threat for this)


at this time, the real military power is the projection capability
the capability to send a big armee, far and fast.
Only US could do this worldwide.

but after them, there is plenty of countries able to do that, smaller way.

France start to understood that recently (...... ) but with professionnalisme (no conscription now in France), thing go faster and better.

I still wait for a real european armee, far more credible than the sum of all actual disparate european armees.
not to make the war but to be sure peace will prevail.

[Kapitan]

im sure it will britian has a fair army not big by any means but it does go far i mean we have bases in the bahamas bermuda falklands assension some places in the pacific some in europe so its a veriaty like america.

as for france they just keeping out of the pollitical tension and that can be a good thing for them i mean no one wants to fight some one elses war do they

[OKO]

Why SSBN are so quiet

that was the question
my opinion is : that's what they were made for
Their job is to stay undetected until they received the vector to target.
That's one of the reason there is no interest at all to include a drivable SSBN in DW (except to play the turkey ...)


SSBN are now often older than SSN, so they are often noisy than them.
Ships take the same advantage of the technology, depending on the year (improvment are sooo speed) of development, test, and production !
sometimes, some hardware improve a lot from original specification before the ship is commissioned.
sometimes not, and one hardware is far more expensive and less effective than prevision ...

but someone explain me (ingeneer on this business) that the longer the ship, the less the noise generated everything else equal.
so, with equal technology, a SSBN and a SSN commissioned the same year, with the same time for development and same time for test, the SSBN should be quieter (because larger).
What ? 2 sub developed, tested and commissioned at the same times never occurs ?
damn ... this make things more complicated

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by OKO

you are also a dinosaurus
your strategy principle are totally outdated, you live in the old world, Kapitain

fast projection forces is the key today, nuclear dissuasion is just obsolete from end of cold war.

So you’re advocating using nuclear weapons in conventional war? You’re the one whose living in the old world then, your thinking just like some of the people who were planning Operation Olympic or some of the strategists in the beginning of the cold war. If this is how the French think I’m glad the US has all those missile subs! One of our Ohios can wipe your nation off the face of the Earth and have rockets left over if you even contemplate using nukes to settle a dispute with us.

Saying that deterrence is obsolete is like saying the rifle is obsolete. If your enemy or potential enemy has nukes they won’t risk using them on you for fear of retaliation in kind. Look at the nations that are pursuing nuclear weapons? Iran and North Korea. Why do they want them? Equality with the west!

[Kapitan]

thank god relief some one understands

[OKO]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

So you’re advocating using nuclear weapons in conventional war?

are you crazy ?
or militarist ?
I reject the use of the nuclear power on the battle field
as I reject the use of uranium ammunition

edit :
but I don't reject the military dissuasion

it's not because I say I judge obsolete the strategical dissuasion that I like the tactical use ...
all, your discuss around this prove you maybe want me to think like this
but I'm not.
you can keep your fear with you, and forget the France NEVER was ONCE in history the ennemy of US.
And Helped US in some crutial occasions for your own history also.

But this times, lots of fear in the heart of american people.
know your real ennemy, and know your friends

[Dr.Sid]

Hey .. I guess you are idealising conventional weapons a bit .. in general, there is no difference between nuclear and normal weapons. Nuclear are just stronger. Both kills and both kills well.

[OKO]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Hey .. I guess you are idealising conventional weapons a bit .. in general, there is no difference between nuclear and normal weapons. Nuclear are just stronger. Both kills and both kills well.

you certainly must be joking ...
If you don't make a difference beetween conventionnal weapon and nuclear weapon you really need to take a look to Hiroshima pictures or downloading small film on internet, like Ivy Mike (9 Mt, first hydrogen device ~1958)
you will see the difference.

If not, consult a doctor (maybe just an optician).