US Navy locks in a record purchase - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 167
  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wyoming
    Posts
    3,298
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    8043
    Likes (Received)
    5322

    Default

    In a previous thread about carriers it was pointed out that they are vulnerable to high-speed missiles launched from inshore positions—which is entirely true, Phalanx and similar close-in defense systems notwithstanding. The nice thing about nuke subs is, it's pretty hard to hit one with an Exocet (or whatever the current equivalent is) launched from downtown Mogadishu. So, more bang for the buck compared to a carrier with air wing and crew. Although, and perhaps unfortunately, it's a really large bang with no graduation possible

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    5,320
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    209
    Likes (Received)
    1632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwrench View Post
    In a previous thread about carriers it was pointed out that they are vulnerable to high-speed missiles launched from inshore positions—which is entirely true, Phalanx and similar close-in defense systems notwithstanding. The nice thing about nuke subs is, it's pretty hard to hit one with an Exocet (or whatever the current equivalent is) launched from downtown Mogadishu. So, more bang for the buck compared to a carrier with air wing and crew. Although, and perhaps unfortunately, it's a really large bang with no graduation possible
    The new subs, while nuclear-powered, are not SSBM platforms. They are multi-role attack subs. Definitely dialable.

    Regards.

    Mike

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Geneva Illinois USA
    Posts
    6,340
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2747
    Likes (Received)
    2468

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    Of course a country should be able to defend itself but just how much is necessary? I might be wrong but I get the impression from what many US members post is that they don't like paying taxes for anything other than "defense".

    List of countries by military expenditures - Wikipedia
    A good offense is the best defense.

    Tom

  4. Likes empwoer, Scottl liked this post
  5. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    106
    Likes (Received)
    58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by michiganbuck View Post

    Normandy was in June and the war ended in Augest.

    ]
    But not the next August

  6. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    16,595
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    ....and that....people...is why you buy stock in GD....the price is going UP with this news.

  7. #46
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Wyoming
    Posts
    3,298
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    8043
    Likes (Received)
    5322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    The new subs, while nuclear-powered, are not SSBM platforms. They are multi-role attack subs. Definitely dialable.
    Awwww darn.

  8. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,095
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    618
    Likes (Received)
    2152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwrench View Post
    Awwww darn.
    We also converted 4 of the Ohio Class SSBN's to SSGN's (guided missile submarine). Each one can hold over 150 Tomahawks.

    SSN's also carry Tomahawks, currently 12 ea. The Block V Virginias will increase that to 40 per.

    The Boomers are long in the tooth just like the 688's. The Columbia Class is the replacement for the Ohio.

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4868
    Likes (Received)
    4864

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Then maybe they shouldn't have shut down Mare Island, eh ?

    btw, 66 boats ? Has anyone told those morons that the Soviet Union dissolved quite a few years ago now ?
    Yes, but somebody else told them what a threat China was becoming.

    (Hint: The information came from within the Chinese government in the form of a threat.)

  10. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    553
    Likes (Received)
    930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy2 View Post
    There was/is the question if Japan would have surrendered unconditionally and for that matter even if they would surrender at all.

    We need to keep some things in perspective. We had fought some for bloody battles taking Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese soldiers were not surrendering but rather fighting to the end. The Allied Forces were assuming that they would need to land on the Japanese mainland and fight accordingly.

    The estimated causalities for both sides were in the millions and could have very likely ended in a stalemate which is what some of the Japanese leadership were hoping for.

    The A-bomb was developed in relative secrecy. Strategically, you are correct that it had little effect however the physiological effect was enormous. When the Japanese leadership heard of the rumors of the devastation at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it was not believed until reports from reconnaissance was verified.

    The A-bomb was a game changer for the Japanese in that they then realized at that point that a mainland war of attrition would no longer be possible. The Japanese also did not know that we only had two at the time and that at would be several months before more would be available.

    The problem with this type of discussion is that it is Monday morning quarter backing and becomes pure conjecture. It is very hard to put ourselves in the situation that both sides were in at the time when we know the details after the fact.
    Japan would have lost the war with or without the bomb. The ultimate outcome would have been the same.

  11. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Posts
    4,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    807
    Likes (Received)
    1936

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post

    Has the world become safer or more dangerous after WW2? When's the last time military intervention by an "outsider" in a country getting involved resulted in peace?
    There hasn't been peace on earth since the population exceeded 1.

  12. Likes ronf liked this post
  13. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Washington
    Posts
    5,320
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    209
    Likes (Received)
    1632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gobo View Post
    ... The ultimate outcome would have been the same.
    Eh, probably not. Prior to the dropping of the nukes, the Japanese had shown, at Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, that they had chosen a mutually annihilistic defeat, killing as many enemies as possible before inevitably dying themselves. Once they realized that we had the power to make the loss of life almost completely one-sided, their thinking changed.

    Regards.

    Mike

  14. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Maryland- USA
    Posts
    3,861
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2088
    Likes (Received)
    2378

    Default

    "Yes, but somebody else told them what a threat China was becoming."

    More partner than threat these days though?
    There is plenty of chatter about 'newly forged'/'deepening' relations between the two:

    Russia and China'''s relationship- how deep does it go


    I see a strategic alliance as troubling.
    This doesn't exactly reassure me...:

    "these two are not yet forming a military bloc to oppose the United States."
    Russia analyst: China and Russia are partners, but not quite allies

  15. #53
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4061
    Likes (Received)
    12680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    The US has the bucks Gordon:
    Of course I can comment the rest of your post but it'd get us nowhere.

    As to the part I'm commenting then you're certainly right. However the USA is a country and not a person. When I travel, and I probably do more than most, what I see is that in almost all countries is that the "man in the street" has more money now than he had one or two decades ago. I certainly don't think the USA is stagnant but is "the man in the street" much better off now than he was 20 years ago? Maybe, but I'm pretty sure "the man in the street" in other countries is catching up faster than you'd think.

    Basically it all depends on how you look at things.

    America Is the Richest, and Most Unequal, Nation | Fortune

    I don't know about you but I can't imagine what that amount of money looks like that these individuals have. Believe it or not but I'm neither jealous or envious. I wonder how happy that money makes them.

    List of richest people in the world - Wikipedia

  16. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,559
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    553
    Likes (Received)
    930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Finegrain View Post
    Eh, probably not. Prior to the dropping of the nukes, the Japanese had shown, at Saipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, that they had chosen a mutually annihilistic defeat, killing as many enemies as possible before inevitably dying themselves. Once they realized that we had the power to make the loss of life almost completely one-sided, their thinking changed.

    Regards.

    Mike
    Help me understand. Are you saying Japan would not have been defeated without nuclear weapons?

  17. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Country
    FALKLAND ISLANDS (MALVINAS)
    Posts
    1,770
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2172
    Likes (Received)
    1141

    Default

    Merry Christmas fellas.
    trolls.jpg

  18. Likes camscan, SND liked this post
  19. #56
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4061
    Likes (Received)
    12680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gobo View Post
    Help me understand. Are you saying Japan would not have been defeated without nuclear weapons?
    No. I agree with Finegrain and will elaborate. Japan was losing but they would have continued as long as possible regardless of the cost to themselves. Even dropping the first bomb didn't stop them but the second did. Only Japanese were losing lives where continuation would have also have cost allied lives. Pretty much a them or us.

    The Kamikaze then were the same as suicide bombers are today. To understand thinking like that I'm guessing you'd have to be one. Problem is that's it's impossible to ask afterwards why they did it.

    Comparable to the instructor training suicide bombers. "Watch carefully as I'll only be doing this once".

    BTW my father fought the Japanese and was in Japan just after the second bomb was dropped.

  20. #57
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4061
    Likes (Received)
    12680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon73 View Post
    Merry Christmas fellas.
    trolls.jpg
    You too wanker.

  21. Likes Demon73, Oldwrench liked this post
  22. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Modesto, CA USA
    Posts
    7,156
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1220

    Default

    I understand the Kamikazei planes either had latches or switches so they could not be opened from the inside until detonating the plane and pilot. So the officers did not really trust the pilots to be so stupid as to never back out.
    Regarding the navy I wish they would modify one of these new subs to replace the research one they scrapped about ten years ago. I find it impossible to belive the navy knows everything about the sea that they need to know. I bet they are still confused by whales and schools of fish from thime to time.
    Bill D.

  23. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS
    Posts
    3,753
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    Yes, but somebody else told them what a threat China was becoming.
    Oh jesus. Save me from paranoid maniacs. Do you check under the bed for Commies every night, too ?

    Now North Korea I could see ... one good sub and ka-blam goes the fucking US Navy marauding off their shores. But it would be long-term stupid, which they, unlike the US, don't seem to be.

    66 boats, janc ? Dumb. Half that is more than enough, which is probably why they fly the 66 flag. Ask for twice as much as you expect to get ...

  24. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,908
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4868
    Likes (Received)
    4864

    Default

    The word "them" in this case referred to U.S. officials. It was in response to Sino-fan-boy's snide remark about the Soviet Union being dead and no longer a threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trboatworks View Post
    "Yes, but somebody else told them what a threat China was becoming."

    More partner than threat these days though?
    There is plenty of chatter about 'newly forged'/'deepening' relations between the two:

    Russia and China'''s relationship- how deep does it go


    I see a strategic alliance as troubling.
    This doesn't exactly reassure me...:

    "these two are not yet forming a military bloc to oppose the United States."
    Russia analyst: China and Russia are partners, but not quite allies


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •