In article c24e0219-f846-4d01-a3d3-
, says...
On Jun 29, 12:01*pm, Mark Borgerson wrote:
In article caa4e8fe-7afd-4102-88ae-c432bde27500@
8g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jun 27, 7:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:

:It looks like the P-8 is going to use expendable UAV's to look
:at surface targets too:
:
:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...plckController...
:
:Using expendable UAV's for routine missions like this could get
:expensive after awhile.
:

Apparently that costs less than the loss of airframe life from using
the airplane to do it, which is why it's being considered.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney

I just spent 40 minutes responding to this post with an explanation of
what airborne ASW could do to really be part of the game and become a
serious threat to Submarines. *It was really cool and relatively
inexpensive.
Then I realized what the hell I was doing and which side I favored so
I deleted the entire post.
I'm really glad I did, because while it would have been interesting to
see what some of you would have done with it, picking it apart and
playing with it, I know there are some very good S-T&E's here that
might have found a way to make it work. *And that scared the hell out
of me.

It would probably have been an interesting discussion. *As for making
it work---there might be people out there to do that. *However, *I
suspect that ONR is keeping a good number of them busy with similar
ideas. * From my semi-insider point of view, *there are more ideas
than engineers, *scientists, and research dollars in the US now. *That
balance may be different in China and Iran. *They may have some
different set *of ideas, *funding and engineers. *The ideas are
probably most easily exported from the US, so let's be a bit
stingy with those!

Mark Borgerson

The idea was simple enough but it took full advantage sensitive
knowledge from the hunted side that would be inappropriate for the
group.

I suppose there are lots of seemingly-insignificant operational
and technical details that could add up to a risk to our
submariners. Something as simple as "You know, the bojimbo
always clicks against the frammistan when we go from 400 to
450 ft." may sound insignificant in itself. But if you
fill a notebook with observations like that, it probably
shouldn't leave the boat.

Simple observations about recurring patterns, mixed with
bright minds can get you to something like Ultra. When it
comes to subs or other military operations, the biggest
leaks often start with "We always....". Part of the
problem for submariners is that the training may
emphasize "Before conducting procedure X, you will always
do procedure Y." If either X or Y has a physical manifestation
outside the boat, you could have a security problem.

Here's my own totally-made up version of an operational detail
that might be a security problem:

"When initiating TMA on the Seawolf Class submarine, it is
always best to make the initial turn to starboard and use
the port side lateral array between the hours of 1300-1500
and 1900-2100. During these hours, the galley
dishwasher, mounted against the starboard outboard bulkhead,
causes a 2.3dB reduction in the signal-to-noise ratio in the
forward half of the starboard lateral array. SUB_NAV_FIXEM
has issued a modification order to resolve this problem, and
parts are estimated to be sub qualified and available in
early 2011."

It gets even worse when a new mess crank arranges the plates
so that they clink together as the spray head rotates! ;-)

Mark Borgerson