Are they phasing out the S-3 too?

In article ,
Gord Beaman wrote:

Since I am relying on what was taught from basic physics, I will
presume that while training might change, objective reality does not.



As I have said, I agree on most of what you've said...with the
exception
that a diesel sub is easier to detect passively when snorkeling than
when running on the surface. I don't see any laws of physics
supporting
that argument.

I've heard the same thing (the snorkeling sub is "noisier" in the
water than the surfaced one). More hull is in the water, so more
noise is transferred to the water and less is transferred to the air.

I'm not convinced that there is a great deal of difference, it seems
overly simplified to me. I have a feeling that water is better than
air at absorbing sound, by which I mean that a surfaced sub probably
transfers nearly all of it's engine noise to the water anyway.


Indeed. Snorkeling or surfaced, it's noise begs for a couple MK-46's.


Or eight Mk 54's at fifty foot spacing...



One has to wonder what sort of evasive action has a chance of suceeding
against eight torps.


Mk 54's are depth charges...


Hmmm, my assumption was wrong. I figured they must be some big
fixed-wing thing, as I never heard of them in the HS community. Our ASW
weapons consisted of four stations in which to amount any combination of
MK-46 torpedo and B57 depth charges only (at least as I recollect).


I know the answer is probably easily Googleable, but what sort of depth
charge (conventional or nuke) is the Mk-54?



--Mike