Texas Size KILL ZONE

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Currently, the best way to find any submarine is to listen for it -- classic passive sonar.

djmcmath,

You are such a sub bubba...your assertion is correct for your platform, not mine. Passive sonobuoys are to airborne ASW what a cane is to a blind man, useful but limited in scope.

[djmcmath]

Ah, quite true, a fact I hadn't taken into consideration. In your world, active is life. Good point.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by djmcmath
Ah, quite true, a fact I hadn't taken into consideration. In your world, active is life. Good point.

You may now go forth and do that vodoo that you do

BTW, I am so happy you guys are on our side...all politics aside, I often wish you guys didn't have to be so silent. BZ.

[djmcmath]

BTW, as someone who uses active regularly, do you see any future for this extremely LF active?

(And I'm awful glad the high tech stuff is on our side, too, Seahawk. US technology in the hands of skilled operators can effectively geolocate a submarine to within the effective range of a weapon, given our current operating environments. Nobody else can really do that yet. On that note, I wish there was better communication between your folks and ours -- there's a lot of stovepiping in this industry that I didn't see before...)

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by djmcmath
BTW, as someone who uses active regularly, do you see any future for this extremely LF active?

(And I'm awful glad the high tech stuff is on our side, too, Seahawk. US technology in the hands of skilled operators can effectively geolocate a submarine to within the effective range of a weapon, given our current operating environments. Nobody else can really do that yet. On that note, I wish there was better communication between your folks and ours -- there's a lot of stovepiping in this industry that I didn't see before...)

Look me up in NMCI Global...I'll send you the particulars.

[island911]

Originally posted by fastpat
Terrorist attacks are not attacks on all of America by submarine. .....

Oh, I see . . .Now it's ALL of America that must be attacked.

. ..not as you stated earlier "successfully attack America."


So if you must change what you said, or MEANT to say ...

I'm guessing that a few tactical nukes on a a few diesel subs, delivered to a few key ports could be considered a attack. . .. even a serious attack, on ALL.

--it's pretty simple, really. Yet, if we did as you envision, and got rid of our sub's . . .if we ever had a bomb sneak in on an enemy sub, I'm guessing you would chaulk it up as. . . something like .. "that strike was directly caused by the most colossal failure of the US government in the history of it's existence."

[kach22i]

If you are into what is needed by the US Navy, when, why and how much - then I suggest you read this:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6304&sequence=0

I read it last night (off a print out), the submarines may get smaller and be of the attack kind, this agrees with what Seahawk has been saying.

Also notice the amount of Littoral Combat Ships there will be in the future, and this topic called "Sea-Basing".

I plan to read some more next weekend, interesting stuff.

One idea was having ships not coming into port every six months for crew rotation. Instead the ship would stay out to sea for two years with partial crew changes flown in via helicopter. This is supposed to save money somehow.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by kach22i
If you are into what is needed by the US Navy, when, why and how much - then I suggest you read this:

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=6304&sequence=0

I read it last night (off a print out), the submarines may get smaller and be of the attack kind, this agrees with what Seahawk has been saying.

Also notice the amount of Littoral Combat Ships there will be in the future, and this topic called "Sea-Basing".

I plan to read some more next weekend, interesting stuff.

One idea was having ships not coming into port every six months for crew rotation. Instead the ship would stay out to sea for two years with partial crew changes flown in via helicopter. This is supposed to save money somehow.

If the US Navy was restricted to operations within 200 nautical miles of the US, i.e. US waters, as they should be the discussion would change radically I'd expect.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by fastpat
If the US Navy was restricted to operations within 200 nautical miles of the US, i.e. US waters, as they should be the discussion would change radically I'd expect.

Is this in the Constitution or something?

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by kach22i
Is this in the Constitution or something?

That is funny!

[kach22i]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
That is funny!

I was being serious, I know the Libertarian mind always falls back to it............it's why the civil war/Linclon was wrong.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by kach22i
Is this in the Constitution or something?

No, unfortunately, it's not. It should be. I can see US warships going to foreign ports with the president on board, but since that's no longer done, there's no need for a single US warship to sail beyond 200 miles of America.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by fastpat
No, unfortunately, it's not. It should be. I can see US warships going to foreign ports with the president on board, but since that's no longer done, there's no need for a single US warship to sail beyond 200 miles of America.

.............but that's where the oil is.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by kach22i
.............but that's where the oil is.

Some of the oil is there, but the entire US oil requirement could be met with supplies entirely within the western hemisphere if certain places now off limits to drilling were opened up. Specifically the California and Oregon coasts.

The mid-east supplies about7-8% of our requirements. The move to control mid-east oil isn't about gaining additional access for Americans, it's to control the access by other countries.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by fastpat
Some of the oil is there, but the entire US oil requirement could be met with supplies entirely within the western hemisphere if certain places now off limits to drilling were opened up. Specifically the California and Oregon coasts.

The mid-east supplies about7-8% of our requirements. The move to control mid-east oil isn't about gaining additional access for Americans, it's to control the access by other countries.

......but.........but ...............China is our friend, why would we do that.