The US Navy, going to Davey' Jones Locker? Probably

[wludavid]

So the Navy guys agree that the two kinds of boats are subs and targets. Can we amend that catchphrase to say, "there are two types of boats -- subs and wastes of taxpayer money"? If that's not accurate, why not?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by djmcmath
The Bug didn't demonstrate the required reliability for daily operations in Hampton Roads traffic. If I owned a truck and a flatbed, she'd probably get around a bit more, but living life as the Nav/Ops department head and spending nights and weekends pouring TLC into the Bug to keep her operational was killing me. So I bought a Bimmer. It wasn't what I wanted, but was a lot cheaper and easier to find than the Porsche that I did. (shrug) When I get some time, I'll finish the interior restoration on the Bug, sell her, and use the money to put towards a 911.

My mother wants to sell her '73 Beetle, you could have two.

How's "flying" these days?


If my only objective was knowing that someone was coming across a 200NM line, I wouldn't even build submarines.

Fixed defenses, while having their place, can't beat movable defenses all of the time, so a mix of both seems desirable.

But what does 200NM buy you against missile boats with 6000 mile range?

Are submarines required to handle that threat, if there is such a threat from a philosophical point of view, or can that be dealth with through other means? I mean, is there a country that built 6000 mile range ICBM carrying submarines prior to the US Navy, or did others build them to counter the US government's threat? Other than the US government, Soviet Union, and China, who has subs with missiles of that range?

How does a 200NM buffer provide and coverage of ... listen, Pat, there's a lot of things that submarines do well outside of 200NM that we don't talk about.

I picked that distance arbitrarily, pick another one. Missions like tapping into undersea phone cables thought to be secure and other things; so what? Does America need those things done? No, we do not. Most of those things have to do with enabling the US government to threaten or intimidate others, and nothing with defending America.

A 90% reduction in military spending, coming up.

Oh, hey, company's here, and she's cute. I'd better run.

Oh, sweet bird of youth, where for art thou?

[MFAFF]

In this article it makes no difference how long Lind has been writing about Navy issues...he makes no reference to previous aspects which could support and add weight to his hyposthesis...and so on the basis of that he has failed to create a story that withstands examination.

That we know, by having read previous articles, that his position is one which may have validity is not in question. But its that omission that undermines this article. Had he stated that this was a further example of the issues facing the 'carrier group' concept then he would have broadened the conversation and made ALL of his experience valid.

The bigger picture is, however as others have stated... subs and targets... although I recall the RN 'boat (non-nuclear) being somewhat surprised by a rather active Sea King....

Luck or persistance will always be the debate...but the result was unequivocal..the sub was detected and well within the range of a number of 'reliable' ASW weapons...and probably not within range of a 'major ship' (in RN terms naturally).

As to whether or not the US needs this extended reach 'offensive' capacity is it not a matter of interpretation?... for example how far does the 'defence of the US extend to?...Had the US fleet intercepted the RN fleet in mid Altantic in 1812 would you have a White House? or a Red One? Would it have been constitutional to do so? How about in the Channel? or in Plymouth Sound or Portsmouth?

In every case they would arguably have been defending the US...but at arm's length. Perhaps I miss read the Constitution and there are more precise geographical limits placed therein that I can see.

[JSDSKI]

Originally posted by MFAFF ...the Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of a carrier group in international waters... Lind makes no mention of it being undetected prior to this...However if can make the same statement and provide sufficient information to establish that until it surfaced the Group was unaware of its presence, it had passed undetected thor the various 'screens' that protect the carrier from this type of threat, then his story has validity...But I do not read that in his story. The US Admiral that says the sub could have provoked an international incident is being equally 'economical' with the truth.

Exactly. It would be more interesting if the Navy wanted the Chinese to think they could trail a carrier group without being tracked...and if the usual 'Silent Service' rules apply the US sub attached to the carrier group will stay 'silent'

[Usmellgass2?]

All country's play hard ball espionage and foreign policy. The only reason to act like the US is the only, or the instigator of all, is because that person is blinded from facts by extreme prejudice. I have concerns about fascism in our government. But, Pat, if our gov was a shadow of the evil you describe, dissidents would be dispensed with at their first whisper. Your very existence is proof that your belief's are inaccurate.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Usmellgass2?
All country's play hard ball espionage and foreign policy.

Correction, not countries, it's governments. Government and governments are dangerous anachronisms.

The only reason to act like the US is the only, or the instigator of all, is because that person is blinded from facts by extreme prejudice.

No, it's because I'm an American living in America. I don't care what other governments do, it's wholly irrelevant.

I have concerns about fascism in our government.

The US government has been fascist, in it's unique fashion, since at least 1932.

But, Pat, if our gov was a shadow of the evil you describe, dissidents would be dispensed with at their first whisper. Your very existence is proof that your belief's are inaccurate.

If the US government were to decide to arrest, say, 120,000 US citizens and put them in "camps", would you reconsider your conclusion?

[Usmellgass2?]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]Correction, not countries, it's governments. Government and governments are dangerous anachronisms.

[b]
No, it's because I'm an American living in America. I don't care what other governments do, it's wholly irrelevant.

[b]
The US government has been fascist, in it's unique fashion, since at least 1932.


If the US government were to decide to arrest, say, 120,000 US citizens and put them in "camps", would you reconsider your conclusion?

You need to get out in the world more and spend a little less time playing silly word games in fount of your PC. Countries are geographical regions, defined by borders, defined by governments.


America and the US gov are part of the world. We protect our freedoms and prosperity as a nation. That can not be achieved without military strength. Your presonal prosperity and freedom of expression is a product of this country, its gov and its policy's.

There are elements of fascism in all governments. Comparatively speaking our country and our gov is among the least fascist in history.


Millions in graves would be the product of the type of government you describe. Wake up.

[djmcmath]

Originally posted by fastpat
Fixed defenses, while having their place, can't beat movable defenses all of the time, so a mix of both seems desirable.

Fixed defenses would certainly be sufficient to stop any typical Naval invasion. Well, sort of. We have an awful lot of coastline with essentially zero controlled chokepoints. Early warning static sonar lines (a la SOSUS of the 50's) spread across the ocean's floor, supplemented by satellite tracking (visual and electronic), tied to a small arsenal of (essentially) modified Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes would do a pretty good job against any monolithic threat.

Sadly, the defenses we need today are not against a traditional threat. The Persians are not going to invade en masse in their triremes like they did at Thermopylae. The Russians aren't going to cross the oceans like the Allies did the Channel.

Are submarines required to handle that threat, if there is such a threat from a philosophical point of view, or can that be dealth with through other means? I mean, is there a country that built 6000 mile range ICBM carrying submarines prior to the US Navy, or did others build them to counter the US government's threat?

Submarines are a pretty handy thing, really. Let's say the Chinese had a missile boat capable of striking from, well, anywhere outside your hypothetical 200nm border. They wouldn't even need 6000nm -- they could build a missile capable of striking at 3000 miles, and could hit NYC from off the coast of California. According to your doctrine, we'd have no way of knowing that we were about to get hit until the missile was in the air. 30 minutes warning, whee! Fortunately, current doctrine allows us to maintain a presence oceanwide, really. It would be extremely unlikely that any foreign power could put a serious threat to sea without our knowledge.

As to the threat-counterthreat concept, we can do the irrelevant historical review of the Cold War if you'd like, but it's pretty moot. The fact is that SLBMs are currently available to anyone with the cash to buy them. While it isn't one of the current submarine force's primary missions, we do concern ourselves with that sort of thing, and we are very capable of dealing with that threat.

Other than the US government, Soviet Union, and China, who has subs with missiles of that range?

All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Missions like tapping into undersea phone cables thought to be secure and other things; so what? Does America need those things done? No, we do not. Most of those things have to do with enabling the US government to threaten or intimidate others, and nothing with defending America.

This is where I just laugh. Let's say, just hypothetically, that our current enemies in Iraq were using nonsecure landlines that submarines could tap into, a la the sea stories of legend -- wouldn't it be nice to have access to their communications? Don't you think it would be helpful to know where they're going to be next? While submarines do not currently possess the capability to tap into Iraqi insurgent comms, I find it utterly hilarious that you think that ability is unnecessary. I mean, come on, Pat, militaries have been jumping through their *******s for thousands of years, trying to figure out what the other side is thinking -- even when at peace. Intelligence gathering is an absolutely essential facet of any world power.

Oh, sweet bird of youth, where for art thou? [/B]

Indeed; would that I were still young enough to stay up until 2am "watching movies" when I know I need to be up for work at 5am the next morning.

[Moneyguy1]

We need to define fixed defenses more clearly.

THe Atlantic Wall wasn't too much of a deterrent, nor was the Maginot Line.

[djmcmath]

I'll add a quick thought for Sunday morning. The surface Navy is not obsolete or outmoded, though it might be easy to draw that conclusion. Rather, surface Navies have failed to adequately recognize and respond to the submarine threat. As a submariner, I believe that finding submarines is hard, but certainly not impossible. I believe that a concerted effort from surface and airborne forces could effectively neutralize a submarine threat.

My point, of course, is that CVNs and their escorts still have value, quite a bit of it, in fact. The air power available on a modern CVN is absolutely incredible. That power projection capability translates directly into a huge amount of diplomatic power projection. "You want to invade who? Have you looked off your coast recently? Do you think there might be consequences for your actions?"

Sure, modern SSKs make for some pretty s***-hot coastal defenses in some of the places we visit, a fact that makes some question the adequacy of the entire surface fleet, but submarines simply don't have that kind of power projection.