Polmar, an independent scholar, said the Navy's argument was weak because little of the advanced technology used in nuclear submarines is applicable to diesels. They're just not man enough to admit it. O'Rourk said some of the skills used in making nuclear submarines could be transferred to a diesel, such as welding the special steel required for a sub's hull and means of reducing the noise a boat produces. The Navy report notes that a diesel sub, operating on its batteries, is quieter than a nuclear boat. But the Navy argues that diesel submarines are inadequate for its missions, which require long transits to operating areas off foreign shores and prolonged periods hidden under water.
Nuclear submarines are able to stay underwater virtually as long as they have food.
But if those submarines have to move rapidly in a combat situation, they will drain the power in their batteries in an hour or two, he said. Those limitations make even the best conventional subs inadequate for most of the U.S. submarine missions, even in the post-Cold War era, O'Rourk said. But Polmar and other analysts have argued that without the Soviet submarine threat and with tight budgets, the U.S. Navy could use some of the relatively cheap diesel subs to augment its shrinking force of expensive nuclear boats.