Originally Posted by
paultr
I understand the point made by Lonewolf about the US not wanting the positions known of any of its tactical nuclear submarines but there are many types of submarines and I am surprised that considering all the assets deployed there has been no mention of any other types.
1. Paultr, words have meanings. I was referring to strategic missile subs. They do not carry "tactical nukes."
End of comment on that.
2. BEA report on AF 447 made specific mention of how a submarine searching for underwater beacon and wreckage in deep water was hampered by some technological factors.
For example, Malaysia itself has 2 French built submarines, the Australians have 6 Collins Class subs based in Western Australia, Japan has 16 and heaven knows how many the Chinese have.
If you consider sea state, and speed of the asset, as well as transit time, the diesel sub as search asset may not have the bang for the buck that you imagine. Radar scan better done by aircraft. Sonar near the surface can run into some noise problems when looking for small things, and some things may not reflect sonar waves very well.
Taking the 6 Australian ones as an example, it does not seem to make sense that the positions of all have to remain secret as presumably some have to come back to base for resupply and then they would be visible by satellite.
How much time did you spend in the Navy, Paul.
If I were running this SAR Op, I'd not be asking for submarines in that particular area, for some of the reasons stated above. There are better assets available.