This was sent to me today.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not arguing that. There is a ATS member who would actually know if they have done something like this or not, but I don't see him answering anything related to something like that any time soon. I wouldn't in his shoes.

Also how do we know they were converted strictly to a SSGN? maybe during that time they did more than just that. At least... that's what I would do.

Hey Zaph you would know about this. Is it possible for a Seaking or some other navy helicopter to drop off a bunch of SEALS 100 miles off from their intended drop point in the middle of the ocean?

I have a friend with an interesting story about something like that. Took the navy 2 days to find them floating around in the ocean, and it was a sub that came to rescue them. At least that's what he says.

A pilot to get it 100 miles wrong in where the drop of was supposed to be?

a reply to: BASSPLYR
I think your talking about a sub on a p.r.o. exercise. An operatioal sub WOULD NOT compromise its safety in any way, let alone let any crew ashore. As for fast attack sub they would have to have air and sea superiority to expose themselves to immediate detection and destruction.
I think a lot of people put too much faith in drones. Essentially their only important factor is that a living person is at no at risk in its operation. Delivering a weapon system , yes. But survielance? Very questionable when a sat can deliver better and sharper images without the need to risk the said drone being shot down.
Don't go into " drones have live imaging but sats are passing imagery". That's disengenuous to the military and the billion tey've spent on putting stationary sats in places that matter.

a reply to: crayzeed

Geosynchronous satellites aren't over everywhere. A sea launched UAV gives them a quick assessment both pre and post attack. There are ways to launch it that don't compromise security of the sub during launch.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Would be far from the first time something like that happened. It could quite easily happen honestly.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Said pilots also have a hard time figuring out the altitude they are at at nighttime and have dropped them from 75 feet when they thought it was 15. Everybody getting knocked out when they smack into the water from the fall. Things happen I guess.

People think of SEALs as commandos that only do what they see in Hollywood. Had an interesting story about when A friend I know had to as part of his training put on a mark 5 type diving suite get lowered down on a underwater elevator, lift type thing attached to an oil rig off California with his diving partner and descend all the way down. Said it was actually kinda boring down there and they played slow motion slap hands in their diving suits with each other. Said the accent takes even longer than the descent cause the lift has to stop for several minutes at certain depths for the pressurization or something. Worst part was they were only allowed chem sticks for light to navigate and they had visibility of about 5 feet. Said the main thing running through their mind was what else is down there with them swimming around. When I asked him about what depth the divers were to I was expecting something like 300-400 feet. He responded 1,065. SO that brings up a question., What are SEALs doing where they need to be trained to descend to 1,065 feet and walk along the ocean sea floor.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

The frequent stops while ascending are to prevent nitrogen narcosis (the bends).

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: BASSPLYR

At night, over the water, with no references, it's easy to do. Your altimeter stops working below a certain altitude, so you have to eyeball it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Dude at night that could be close to impossible to get right. Black inky sea, no lights, no depth perception, everything looks the same. Hard to tell if that's a giant wave or a little surface chop. They used to call that center hole you jump through the hell hole for a reason I guess. I always figured you jump off the side out the door or something but he said nope half the time there is a hole in the bottom you jump through.

Wonder if any Soft Ducks went wrong and the helo took in too much water and sank. I should ask him if he's ever heard of something like that happening.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Maybe this?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your comment brought that to mind.

After a little more pressing, I'm not so sure this is a VLS or tube launched UAV. I'm beginning to think it's a system that is carried in an ROV hanger, released and floated to the surface. From there it has the ability to get airborne. The sub could be miles away by that point.

Upon return, it lands, submerses itself and returns to the submarine's hanger. What I don't know if any swimmers are involved. Probably, I'd think.

The Carter has two fairly large hangers on both top and bottom of the hull and many others utilize a plug and play ROV hanger.

From his impression this is a larger UAS capable of much of what the Air Force's UAS's do day to day. Perhaps too large to be torpedo tube delivered. It is also likely not controlled from the sub but relinquished to a state side control center once afloat.

Just what I'm beginning to piece together. Thanks for your input.

a reply to: aholic

Interesting.
Was going to say that an immediate launch would be "anti stealth" and that the best system would involve sub surface release then a delayed launch to introduce time and distance variables to mask the Sub's actual position.

Recovery would present the same challenges so a stealthy and durable system would be the obvious solution.

originally posted by: swanne

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Apart from looking cool it shoots 1s and 0s out of it's nose.

I believe that these "1s and 0s shooting out of its nose" are supposed to mean that it's emitting radio information to its base under the form of bits.

1s and 0s exchanged in illustrations typically represent a 2 way digital data communications link , not necessarily RF but thanks for the input on the quality of the joke anyway.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I think a couple of our "special" subs have alternate propulsion options that allow them to turn off the main prop and run on what are essentially supped up 360 degree pivoting trolling motor pods mounting along the side of the hull. They do this for the protection of the swimmers outside the craft and it is extremely quite. It also allows them to maintain perfect geographic position under the water if need be for reconnaissance and signals intel.

You might be surprised how tough that is to do with a single prop and rudder.

a reply to: aholic

I was under the impression that ever since the original Seawolf got her "upgrades", azimuthing thrusters and dynamic positioning systems were the standard for all "special" boats.

The Soviets also mounted a pair of smaller "creeper" props on at least some of the Victor class boats, and I'd be very surprised if a larger number of American sub's hadn't been fitted with a similar ability. They come in handy for a bunch of stuff, whether that's delivering SEALS without turning them into chop suey, holding position without so much as a peep, and maneuvering under polnyas during under-ice ops.

a reply to: aholic

Yeah said if the boat got unstable and even picked up a single knot in speed it could get real dangerous real fast. And your in the pitch black of the ocean at night. 60 feet down trying to hold on to some leviathan. I can imagine they would want all sorts of alternate propulsion to maintain perfectly stable at hover.

I've heard a propeller tonal once while diving. It was on a small 90 foot boat and it was far enough away but just the memory of being underwater and hearing it still freaks me out. I have a weird fascination with screws. They are frightening and spectacular at the same time. It's the first thing I want to get a look at when I see a ship. Like seeing the business end of a shark or something. Induction ports scare me to. Don't know how divers swim around supertankers and not worry about those. Even when they "know" the engines are off and the ignition key or whatever is safely stowed away.

Ever seen this video. These guys got lucky that the variable pitch screw was set flat at the time they were doing their hull inspection.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Barnalby

Like on the Victor III's ? Didn't know that. Interesting.

I'll have to go take a look at some photos and see if I can spot one.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Been there done that. For us it was supposed to be a 10-10 jump. 10 feet of altitude and 10 knots airspeed. When it is done right the water hits you in the butt and you don't go too deep. That lets you see which way is up. On a dark night it is easy to be come disoriented and actually swim towards the bottom instead of the surface. One time I jumped into the St. Johns river and got stuck in the mud with my head about 8 feet under water. They had just issued us HEEDs (Helicopter Emergency Escape Divice mini SCUBA) bottles, thank God. It took all of my bottle to get free of the mud.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

i could imagine ALLLLOT of reasons for ANY navy diver to go that deep. first one that comes to mind is rescue. i don't think the KIRSK was under 1000feet but i could be wrong. I'm pretty sure we have bases on the bottom of the ocean, or at least i hope we do, some one would be slacking off if we didn't, there is ZERO reason for us not to have a base on the bottom.

then the obvious military reasons for being that deep like fiber cables and what not.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Is that the incident mentioned in American Sniper? They don't fly Sea Kings any more although we did drop some SEALs off in some weird places, but, I'm pretty sure that we dropped them where they were supposed to be.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
They used to call that center hole you jump through the hell hole for a reason I guess. I always figured you jump off the side out the door or something but he said nope half the time there is a hole in the bottom you jump through.

Wonder if any Soft Ducks went wrong and the helo took in too much water and sank. I should ask him if he's ever heard of something like that happening.

I'd be curious about that "hell hole". The only center hole that I know of in a helicopter was where we deployed the sonar dip from in the Sea King. If the sonar was removed there would be a hole, but it would be a tight fit.

"Soft Duck" Is that where a CH-46 or a CH-53 puts it's ramp into the water?