Well, that is a moronic submarine piece. Clearly you have no idea of what America's attack submarines do in gathering intelligence via passive sonar technology. Moreover, while periscope surveillance might be limited IT DEPENDS ON HOW HIGH YOU RAISE THE PERISCOPE. THE HIGHER IT IS THE FURTHER YOU SEE. DUH. The Navy attack subs and its passive towed array sonar became, almost by accident, the most advanced intelligence platform we have. That is an idiotic article, written by someone completely in the dark. Our attack submarines, and the Office of Naval Intelligence, via the small and unappreciated office of Acoustics Intelligence Specialists, now give us the best intelligence we have of foreign navy capacity, terrorist camps and activity. This is dumb. Next time, get somebody who understands this stuff to do it, and at the same time, do a public service to recognize these guys who can spend four or five months a year underwater and underway. Damn, it is irritating when so-called reporters can't get it right.

You tell'em sharecropper!

And while you're at it, you should have told the Explainer the difference between a Russian Oscar II class submarine and Monica Lewinsky...... when an Oscar goes down, it stays there and swallows the whole lot. lol

The correct answer : they kill whales

"Explainer thanks Norman Polmar, naval analyst and author of Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines, 1945-2001"

As this published author and professional naval analyst clearly has no clue about subs, where can I buy your book then sharecropper? I do hope it explains how if you push the periscope up a few more feet you might be able to see an extra few miles more than the few miles mentioned in the article. And goes on to explain that the naval and other intelligence gathering also mentioned is helped by towed sonar arrays. He obviously has no clue, otherwise he would have tried to shoe horn it all in to a short web magazine article about attack subs aimed at people with little more than a passing interest.

Further evidence of the author's cluelessness on submarines:

"Norman Polmar is an analyst, historian, and author specializ-ing in naval and strategic issues. He has served as a consultant to three Secretaries of the Navy, three members of the U.S. Senate, one member of the House of Representatives, and the Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory as well as to the Deputy Counsellor of President Reagan. He also served from 1982 to 1986 as a member of the Secretary of the Navy's Research Advisory Committee (NRAC)"

"Mr. Polmar has written or coauthored more than 30 books.These include coauthoring with Thomas B. Allen the best-selling biography Rickover: Controversy and Genius (1982). His submarine-related books include Atomic Submarines (1963), Death of the Thresher (1964), American Submarines (1981), Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy (1986), and Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies, 1718-1990 (1991). In addition, he is author of the Naval Institute reference books The Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet and Guide to the Soviet Navy, both published at three-year inter-vals. These are considered to be the definite reference books in their fields."

"From 1967 to 1977, Mr. Polmar was the editor of the U.S. and several other sections of the annual Jane's Fighting Ships. The first American to ever hold an editorship with that publication, he was totally responsible for almost one-third of the volume in that period."

Clearly, the man has no idea what he's talking about.

C-Tips:

"Explainer thanks Norman Polmar, naval analyst and author of Cold War Submarines: The Design and Construction of U.S. and Soviet Submarines, 1945-2001"

"Norman Polmar is an analyst, historian, and author specializ-ing in naval and strategic issues. He has served as a consultant to three Secretaries of the Navy, three members of the U.S. Senate, one member of the House of Representatives, and the Director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory as well as to the Deputy Counsellor of President Reagan. He also served from 1982 to 1986 as a member of the Secretary of the Navy's Research Advisory Committee (NRAC)"

"Mr. Polmar has written or coauthored more than 30 books.These include coauthoring with Thomas B. Allen the best-selling biography Rickover: Controversy and Genius (1982). His submarine-related books include Atomic Submarines (1963), Death of the Thresher (1964), American Submarines (1981), Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy (1986), and Submarines of the Russian and Soviet Navies, 1718-1990 (1991). In addition, he is author of the Naval Institute reference books The Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet and Guide to the Soviet Navy, both published at three-year inter-vals. These are considered to be the definite reference books in their fields."

"From 1967 to 1977, Mr. Polmar was the editor of the U.S. and several other sections of the annual Jane's Fighting Ships. The first American to ever hold an editorship with that publication, he was totally responsible for almost one-third of the volume in that period."

Yeah, but what has he done lately? I mean clearly he seems unaware of how the periscope height to range of view ratio has drastically changed or something ;)

Well I guess no one's told him about the new 12,000ft periscope that allows US subs to spy on terrorist camps in Afghanistan from the safety of the Indian Ocean, maybe that's what's wrong with the article.

sharecropper:

Well, that is a moronic submarine piece. Clearly you have no idea of what America's attack submarines do in gathering intelligence via passive sonar technology. Moreover, while periscope surveillance might be limited IT DEPENDS ON HOW HIGH YOU RAISE THE PERISCOPE. THE HIGHER IT IS THE FURTHER YOU SEE. DUH. The Navy attack subs and its passive towed array sonar became, almost by accident, the most advanced intelligence platform we have. That is an idiotic article, written by someone completely in the dark. Our attack submarines, and the Office of Naval Intelligence, via the small and unappreciated office of Acoustics Intelligence Specialists, now give us the best intelligence we have of foreign navy capacity, terrorist camps and activity. This is dumb. Next time, get somebody who understands this stuff to do it, and at the same time, do a public service to recognize these guys who can spend four or five months a year underwater and underway. Damn, it is irritating when so-called reporters can't get it right.

Actually, the article wasn't too bad and got a lot of the major things right, despite your bluster. The article does mention intelligence gathering being a primary function of attack submarines in peacetime and does mention gathering intelligence on foreign navies, although it doesn't mention terrorist camps or the specific means of collection. Also, so what if you can see farther if you raise the periscope? The article didn't say anything to the contrary. It seems that the point of your post is just to show off rather than raise any legitimate criticism of the article.