Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] drug-sub mania

[irox <irox@ix.netcom.com>]

Two way trips doubles the risk of getting caught (or at least offers
twice the opportunity to the coast guard to capture your vessels).
Also it cuts in half the amount of profitable trips you are making
(having your captain back in the water making a profit run in a week,
verses 2 or 3 weeks or more), meaning twice as many crews to keep
the same level of shipments.

The fact you can not easily get trained crews and or forced to rely on
crew re-use means your operation can easily be shut down be capturing
or killing a couple of crews (or if authorities or rival factions
offer rewards and hire your crews away).  Also, your operation can not
easily be scaled up.  As I recall, several books and documentaries claim
that lack of experienced crews was in part responsible for a decline in
the effectiveness of that German submarine fleet towards the end of WWII.
(In contrast the US focused on crew train, 50% vet, 50% noob crews, rather
than 100%vet/ace crews.)

The cost of production of cocaine is low, other than the perceived loss of
profit (a human factor) it is a very minor set back to loosing a surface boat.
There is major gains to be had by doubling the number of for profit runs.
Doing this via submarine is going to be much harder.

Maybe one day it will be cost effective to use submarines, but as long as
surface boats are cheaper, easier to crew, and quicker to turn around
(sink it and build a new), they will be the weapon of choice.  When the
authorities are able to stop most of the surface boats, the smugglers
will find a new way....

Cheers!
  Ian
--
P.S.:  Marc, I made a comment of one of your submarine blog posts, did it
ever show up?

-----Original Message-----
>From: Marc de Piolenc <piolenc@archivale.com>
>Sent: Feb 16, 2011 1:22 AM
>To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] drug-sub mania
>
>
>
>Archivale catalog: http://www.archivale.com/catalog
>Ducted fans: http://massflow.archivale.com/
>Polymath weblog: http://www.archivale.com/weblog
>Translation services (BeWords): http://www.bewords.com/Marc-dePiolenc
>Translation services (ProZ): http://www.proz.com/profile/639380
>Translation services (translatorscafe): 
>http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/profile/default.asp?LID=130919&ForOthers=true#Profile_Start
>
>On 2/16/2011 4:56 PM, irox wrote:
>
>> To make it more stealthy than the surface boats they will require
>> accurate depth keeping.  Come up a few feet too much and you
>> present a taller radar target than the decks awash boats, a few feet
>> to low and you are starving the diesels (and crew) of air.
>
>Not a big problem in a sub designed with that in mind. A lot of the 
>problems that u-boats retrofitted late in war with snorkels had was due 
>to the fact that their hulls were optimized for surface operation.
>
>> I am wondering how thick the hull materially is going to be (any GRP
>> fans want to do some calculations and estimate the thickness of the
>> hull?).  As the vessel dives there is going to be some contraction of
>> the hull, reducing buoyancy, making it go deeper.
>
>The stiffness of a GRP hull is going to make compressive strains very 
>small, so this effect isn't likely to be a problem, particularly for a 
>vessel designed to operate near the surface. The thickness of the hull 
>is going to be dictated primarily by structural stability rather than 
>strength, so it depends heavily on the stiffness of the laminate and any 
>separate stiffening members that are provided. Best answer I can offer 
>is "not very thick."
>
>> On top of the comparative complexity of construction and testing when
>> compared against low profile surface boats, there is the complexity of
>> operation and investment in crews.  With complexity of operation come
>> the requirement of higher/more training for crews.
>
>Yes, they definitely won't be able to make do with co-opted fishermen 
>for these boats. They will have to do their planning based on two-way 
>trips instead of scuttling the boats on arrival, and on retaining crews 
>for multiple trips rather than paying off fishermen and sending them 
>home. Crew will have to be trained in emergency procedures, particularly 
>procedures for dealing with radar detection of the snorkel head.
>
>> Compared to the operation of decks-a-wash-boats, the submarine doesn't
>> seem like it will make economic sense for drug smugglers.  They are most
>> likely the relics of experimentation.  Maybe in the future...
>
>I don't see how you can say that, considering the enormous profit 
>margins involved. The only thing that could stop the technical 
>escalation of the drug war is legalization, which I favor.
>
>Assuming that the cost of the first unit in a series is much higher than 
>a semisub of equal payload, the learning curve is very steep, so the 
>second unit will be much cheaper than the first. Assuming, too, that the 
>subs are able to make several runs before being caught or disposed of. 
>Those two factors can more than compensate for the difference in initial 
>cost. Add the security advantage of not having to get new crews for each 
>run (which makes it relatively easy for police agencies to plant 
>agents), and it looks pretty attractive from their point of view, 
>despite the technical difficulties.
>
>Marc
>
>
>
>************************************************************************
>************************************************************************
>************************************************************************
>The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
>CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.  Your email address appears in our database
>because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
>from our organization.
>
>If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
>link below or send a blank email message to:
>	removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
>
>Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
>automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
>our server receiving your request.
>
>PSUBS.ORG
>PO Box 53
>Weare, NH  03281
>603-529-1100
>************************************************************************
>************************************************************************
>************************************************************************
>




************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003.  Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.

If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
	removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org

Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.

PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 53
Weare, NH  03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************