-

2024-11-16 05:41:18

anonymiss

anonymiss@despora.de

Norwegian #fishermen snagged U.S. nuclear-powered #submarine

Source: https://www.thebarentsobserver.com/security/norwegian-fishermen-snagged-us-nuclearpowered-submarine/420357

#Virginia #navy #usa #Norway #fail #problem #military #news #accident

show all 12 commentaires

2024-11-16 06:29:01

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@societas.online

Yum.

2024-11-16 13:53:36

Adam Hunt

gander22h@diasp.org

happens more often than you think...

2024-11-16 16:36:11

Jochen bei Geraspora*

fohlenfan@pod.geraspora.de

Actually, you're allowed to keep whatever you catch in your fishing net, right 🤔

2024-11-16 19:42:50

David

prplcdclnw@diasp.eu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Virginia_(SSN-774)

On 13 November 2024, Virginia accidentally sailed into the nets of Øygutt, a fishing vessel, near the island of Senja, Norway. The Øygutt was fishing for halibut at the time of the incident. The Virginia was able to successfully free itself without further damage to the submarine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine

In my day there were two kinds of nuclear-powered submarines in the US Navy: SSNs (fast attacks) and SSBNs (ballistic missile submarines, or "boomers"). SSBNs existed (and still exist) primarily to fire ballistic missiles, though they also had (and presumably still have) the ability to fire torpedoes. SSNs existed primarily to fire torpedoes.

More recently there have been SSGNs. The G is for "guided missile." The Virginia class subs are SSNs, not SSGNs, but they fire cruise missiles. It's not clear from the article if they can also use torpedoes. It's also not clear from the article whether the cruise missiles are fired from horizontal tubes like torpedoes or from vertical tubes like ballistic missiles.

Warning: The rest of this comment is technical, pedantic, and wordy.

A ballistic missile is any projectile that, by the time it strikes its target (or the warheads it releases strike their targets) is no longer under thrust. That's what the word "ballistic" means. Bullets fired by firearms are ballistic. When a projectile is ballistic, it is only influenced by gravity and air friction.

A cruise missile, in contrast, is under thrust all the way to its target. This enables it to change course at any time between being launched and striking its target.

Torpedoes are used against surface ships or submarines and not targets on land. Cruise missiles don't have this limitation. When a torpedo launched from a sub strikes its target, it is often not clear where the torpedo came from. Cruise missiles can replace torpedoes in ship-to-ship combat, but when a sub launches them, it reveals its location. That's a disadvantage.

Submarine-launched ballistic missiles exist to be used against targets on land. They are not battlefield or "tactical" weapons; they are "strategic" weapons. Tactical weapons are used to win battles, but strategic weapons are used to win an entire war, all by themselves. This is why weapons called "strategic" are usually nuclear weapons.

I've already made my opinion about the continued deployment of nuclear weapons clear; nuclear weapons must be eliminated, completely.

2024-11-16 22:50:38

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@societas.online

Then there are the subs which do not exist at all...

2024-11-17 19:56:30

David

prplcdclnw@diasp.eu

On the contrary, there are not the subs which do not exist.

2024-11-17 20:15:17

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@societas.online

Maybe also?

2024-11-17 20:39:53

David

prplcdclnw@diasp.eu

Things^1^ that do not exist do not exist.

One of the arguments^2^ for the existence of God is that atheists believe in the existence of a nonexistent God. Nonsense! - God is the greatest thing. - Existent things are greater than nonexistent things. - Therefore, if God does not exist, then God is not the greatest thing, but the greatest thing, by definition, is God. - Therefore God exists.

This is really just a proof that a nonexistent God doesn't exist. You can't make something exist by defining what it is.

wumpernut: (noun) a kind of nut.

There now. Do wumpernuts exist?

^1^ I use this vague word deliberately. I want its vagueness. ^2^ the so-called ontological proof

2024-11-17 20:43:48

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@societas.online

Since submarines are designed to be as invisible as possible, and their presence is generally (the world over) a military secret, it is entirely reasonable to presume that there are subs where we also believe that there are no subs. There may even be subs of types where we have no typology - but let's not go there!

2024-11-17 20:45:24

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@societas.online

Do wumpernuts exist? I see one now. Right here. Not much I can say about it though. Some sort of notion floating in my brain somehow...

2024-11-17 20:46:43

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@societas.online

"God" could in fact be a useful fiction - even as most people do not perceive this.

2024-11-17 20:47:15

Tom Grzybow

tomgrzybow@societas.online

"in fact" there is the Bible - which can make for good reading.