What happen to merchant submarines? Why don't we see massive

>>931299
They're horribly inefficient* and slow on top of being expensive and complicated.

*Under conventional power. You could propell them with glide planes and constantly vary their bouyancy, but that would stress the hull enormously.

>>931300
What about normal subs then? because surely the same would apply.

File: article-1357040-0D30FBC9000005DC-256_634x366.jpg (63KB, 634x366px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 634x366px

>>931299
there isn't really a point for them, why would you need to conceal a vessel carrying legal cargo?

on the other hand, the drug cartels like to toy with the idea

>>931308
It does. That's why no-one operates a sub for reasons other than going places that are under water. Be it for hiding, exploring or doing work.
>duh

>>931309
Large amounts of ice smashing your ship and breaking the hull.

Large waves, High winds.

>>931312
>wat is ice breaker
>wat is underwater current/obstacle
>wat is surfacing
Your idea has been considered by minds greater than yours and the balance has been proven in favour of conventional ships. Contain your autism.

>>931313
Ice breaker, Destroyed by ice.

>>931299
Because the was is over Jimmy.

>>931299
I didn't know theses existed.

>>931300
>Unnecessary asterisk

>>931299
Why the hell would you go through all of the trouble and complexity to do cargo submarines when surface ships work just fine? They'd cost more, carry less cargo, go slower, be more dangerous to operate, and require much higher levels of crew training.

It's not WWII anymore, surface ships aren't getting torpedoed left and right.

>>931299
they already have problems containing the cargo if somethings happened, imagine stopping any water from coming in too

also when you see submarines the first thing is they have absolute no space down there, for a reason

>>931594
This, and that the cargo industry has shifted to containers. I don't know how you could design a sub hull that could store containers internally without worrying that a hatch might leak and ruin the cargo, not to mention probably sinking the sub.

>>931299

>>931640
*shrugs* Military subs have plenty of hatches in them already. Torpedoes, ICBMs, entry hatches, emergency escape trunks, etc. Some (USS Jimmy Carter, for instance) can even deploy and retrieve mini unmanned subs. And presumably merchant subs would not need to go deep.

All that said, cargo subs are still a ridiculously dumb idea in peacetime.

The only real advantage that a merchant submarine has is being able to fare better in storms as the turbulence below the surface is much lower than on the surface.
However, its disadvantages such as cost, maintenance and cargo capacity greatly outweigh its advantages.

>>931640
Might work for VLCCs or other tankers.

>>932030
Leaking oil underwater?

>>934106
Look up Dracones (^:

You don't see them because you're not supposed to see them because they're smuggling cocaine.

File: Narco_submarine_seized_in_Ecuador_2010-07-02_1.jpg (32KB, 300x181px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x181px

>>934152

>>931571
Not that guy but the asterisk connected the "horribly inefficient" with "under conventional power" bit, which goes on to explain an alternative propulsion method.

>>931299
Idiot.

>saged