Military buildup

[sidslotm]

Is it me or does anyone else feel there is a huge global military buildup going on. There seems to be somekind of global madness effecting our thinking, the UK is building two Aircraft carriers plus a small flotilla of Submarines, which in truth we can't afford. Russia, China, India, all seem to be busy building or launching warships. Canada and Australia also seem to be concerned about how seaworthy their boats are, and it looks like the pressure is on to build or buy new ones, but why and where is this pressure coming from, who's applying it and why.

[CCIP]

Not really. New military tech is going to be built regardless of time, and if you look at the pace of acquisition of military equipment now, it's been steadily in decline in most of the Western world. It's been relatively steady in China, and fluctuating quite a bit in the developing world.

Contrary to building a mass of new tech, a lot of countries are slashing budgets and cutting programs. The US and the UK have axed many a program over the last few years, and retired significant numbers of ships, planes and other equipment well before due date. Canada and Australia at the moment are also at relative lows as far as capability, and although debate goes on in both countries, their new acquisitions are pretty insignificant.

Otherwise new warships and such will always be launched. That's just a natural cycle of life for military equipment. It's the numbers that really matter, and the numbers are actually quite low.

[Jimbuna]

Well I was of the impression the UK at least was downsizing...one of those carriers is already earmarked for mothballing before she is completed and it is not yet certain whether the other will have any aircraft to grace her decks :doh:

[magicstix]

Is it me or does anyone else feel there is a huge global military buildup going on. There seems to be somekind of global madness effecting our thinking, the UK is building two Aircraft carriers plus a small flotilla of Submarines, which in truth we can't afford. Russia, China, India, all seem to be busy building or launching warships. Canada and Australia also seem to be concerned about how seaworthy their boats are, and it looks like the pressure is on to build or buy new ones, but why and where is this pressure coming from, who's applying it and why.

It's no secret what China is up to. They're building a blue water navy specifically for challenging the USA in their obsession with Taiwan.. They're already starting to throw their weight around with their neighbors to enforce other policy goals like ownership of the South China Sea. This leads to all the regional powers wanting to build up their militaries to counter the Chinese threat.

Australia has real reason to be concerned about the seaworthines of their subs, as the Collins class has an abysmal availability rate. Combine this with the fact that .au can't keep enough submariners in their navy to crew the subs, and they have a major problem that needs to be addressed.

Russia wants to reclaim the glory of the old Soviet Empire, and has tons of oil money to burn. Their military has been in severe disarray since the collapse of the USSR, so they do actually have a need to modernize some of their military. However, everyone remembers the cold war and Soviet aggression, so Russia's neighbors of course want to counter this threat.

To be fair, it's not just Russia and China expanding, but also smaller regional players (Iran, India, etc...). However, it seems the only military not expanding, or even maintaining its strength, is the USA, for better or worse.

To be honest, I think the world is a lot like it was in the early 1930s, just waiting for a spark to kick off a major world conflict.

[sidslotm]

To be honest, I think the world is a lot like it was in the early 1930s, just waiting for a spark to kick off a major world conflict.


I hope your wrong my friend.

[magicstix]

I hope your wrong my friend.

The sad thing is, the USA let its military decay in the '30s as well, but today we don't have the manufacturing infrastructure to ramp up like we did in WW2 if something bad happens.

[Oberon]

The UK is definitely not upsizing our military, it's a major downsizing in fact because we can't afford it. The carriers and destroyers will be replacing ships that are coming out of service right now, which means that between now and the carriers being launched all we will have are helicopter carriers.

[Jimbuna]

However, it seems the only military not expanding, or even maintaining its strength, is the USA, for better or worse.



I'd add the UK to that statement without any hesitation at all.

[magicstix]

I'd add the UK to that statement without any hesitation at all.

Very well, let's say the West as a whole is allowing its military to decay, which is an even more dangerous thought.

[Oberon]

China will not start anything over Taiwan, not yet anyway and probably not until about 2015-2018, they've still got a way to go on their anti-carrier abilities. I think what Beijings ultimate goal is, is to discourage the idea of American intervention before any war has even begun. It can do this by increasing the capability of its economy and its military, until the US can no longer afford to compete. At that point it then makes a thinly veiled threat at Taipei which is something along the lines of "if you do not join us as a Special Administration Region then we're going to blockade you until you run out of money and starve" and Taipei will realise that their position without US aid is untenable and fold.
The last thing China wants to do is go to war with America or initiate a costly military attack on Taiwan. Beijing wants Taiwan intact, it need Taiwan intact. Most of Chinas trade is with Taiwan and surrounding nations, and if it launches a war there it will completely screw over its economy and that is about the only thing keeping China afloat at the moment and preventing massive internal social unrest (although if the gap between the poor interior and rich exterior continues to grow then unrest could be seen anyway). Therefore China will exert as much pressure as it can on its neighbours without actually warring on them, after all, as Sun Tzu said "True excellence comes from achieving victory without fighting."

[sidslotm]

One of the things that aircraft carriers will need is escorts, destroyers, cruisers even, especially when at sea. A carrier has to be one of the most expensive pieces of hardware in the military tool box.

[magicstix]

China will not start anything over Taiwan, not yet anyway and probably not until about 2015-2018, they've still got a way to go on their anti-carrier abilities. I think what Beijings ultimate goal is, is to discourage the idea of American intervention before any war has even begun. It can do this by increasing the capability of its economy and its military, until the US can no longer afford to compete. At that point it then makes a thinly veiled threat at Taipei which is something along the lines of "if you do not join us as a Special Administration Region then we're going to blockade you until you run out of money and starve" and Taipei will realise that their position without US aid is untenable and fold.
The last thing China wants to do is go to war with America or initiate a costly military attack on Taiwan. Beijing wants Taiwan intact, it need Taiwan intact. Most of Chinas trade is with Taiwan and surrounding nations, and if it launches a war there it will completely screw over its economy and that is about the only thing keeping China afloat at the moment and preventing massive internal social unrest (although if the gap between the poor interior and rich exterior continues to grow then unrest could be seen anyway). Therefore China will exert as much pressure as it can on its neighbours without actually warring on them, after all, as Sun Tzu said "True excellence comes from achieving victory without fighting."

China's economy is already starting to falter. Their factories are starting to close because manufacturers are finding it cheaper to move to places like Vietnam. China's top trading partners are the US, Japan, and Europe. It doesn't need Vietnam, Korea, or the Phillipines, which are many of the places it's currently bullying.

One also needs to take into account China's history. In ancient times, China was the world super power, and they expected everyone to pay homage to the emperor, even if it was only lip service. When you look at China's foreign policy today, it seems they're following this same trend in expecting Western powers to pay homage to China, even if they don't really mean it. This leaves them confused and bewildered when the West basically says "LoL?" Add to this a sensitivity brought on by China's recent history of being occupied by world powers, and you have a nation that cannot and will not accept being told "no" as they see it as a throwback to China being under the oppression of other powers, hence China's warnings to stay away from "internal affairs" and "core Chinese interests" whenever and wherever it can get away with it.

China has shown several times that is is capable of acting irrationally over Taiwan, and the Chinese government is whipping up patriotic sentiment at home to take pressure off of social issues. This is starting to backfire as the public is becoming more zealous and pushing the Chinese government to be more aggressive on the world stage than it is currently prepared for. Thanks to its bullying efforts in the South China Sea, China's neighbors are running, not walking to America looking for help. Many in the public in both Vietnam and the Phillipines have been openly calling for war with China. China can't help but feel more isolated by this trend.

[Jimbuna]

One of the things that aircraft carriers will need is escorts, destroyers, cruisers even, especially when at sea. A carrier has to be one of the most expensive pieces of hardware in the military tool box.

I believe the submarine is now the most deadly/all round effective piece of hardware in a modern fleet now.

[magicstix]

I believe the submarine is now the most deadly/all round effective piece of hardware in a modern fleet now.

Ignoring your obvious bias given the nature of this forum (:03:), a submarine is definitely powerful, but it can't project power the same way a CVN battlegroup can.

A submarine can't neutralize enemy forces the way a battlegroup can, it can really only deny waterspace or take out certain facilities with missile strikes.

[Oberon]

Well, to be fair, the chances of another war in Europe with a nation that has an army comparable to the big three of NATO is pretty slim. Russia benefits too much from the status quo to wreck it. If oil prices go up too high then Russia prices itself out of the market. It might make a play against the former Soviet nations which aren't a part of NATO, but there's enough internal problems for Russia to deal with than for it to want to start stomping around Eastern Europe. Besides enough of the old Warsaw Pact nations are so terrified of the resurgence of the Soviet Union that they'd cry merry havoc in the halls of NATO if the Russians tried something, and I can't blame them.

The major flashpoints at the moment lie around Israel, in particular Egypt and Israel. Quite frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see renew conflict there within the next three years, quite possibly after an Israeli pre-emptive strike. Syria has its own internal problems, they won't get involved, but the other usual suspects might.
North Korea is, as always, an unknown. They've pretty much run out of time in terms of being able to make an effective dent in the souths defences, right now the South could probably hold them off on its own and certainly against the combined forces of the ROK and the US, the DPRK wouldn't even make it to Seoul.
Africa is, as always, usually on fire somewhere, Somalia will continue to kick around in the dirt, Zimbabwe will continue to be the DPRK of Africa, and Sudan will most likely have some kind of civil war in the future following the recent southern split.
Asia outside of China and the DPRK is a difficult one. Indonesia would be one to watch I'd wager, there's always something brewing there with the surrounding neighbourhood. East Timor comes to mind.

The real one I'd look at is the possibility of some kind of military fall out between the US and Pakistan, I don't like the way that the current situation is heading to be honest, and I wouldn't be surprised to see US forces 'accidentally' bomb Pakistani forces on the border of Afghanistan or something like that. The legacy of finding Binny right next to Pakistans top military academy is not going to go away overnight.

The possibility of a renewed clash between India and Pakistan cannot be ruled out either, but it's hard to read that one.

Otherwise it's the usual terror groups, internal strife between Muslim immigrants and the right, conflicts over resources and minor border skirmishes.

Of course, I would probably have said the same thing in 1936 too. So... :damn:

[Oberon]

China's economy is already starting to falter. Their factories are starting to close because manufacturers are finding it cheaper to move to places like Vietnam. China's top trading partners are the US, Japan, and Europe. It doesn't need Vietnam, Korea, or the Phillipines, which are many of the places it's currently bullying.

One also needs to take into account China's history. In ancient times, China was the world super power, and they expected everyone to pay homage to the emperor, even if it was only lip service. When you look at China's foreign policy today, it seems they're following this same trend in expecting Western powers to pay homage to China, even if they don't really mean it. This leaves them confused and bewildered when the West basically says "LoL?" Add to this a sensitivity brought on by China's recent history of being occupied by world powers, and you have a nation that cannot and will not accept being told "no" as they see it as a throwback to China being under the oppression of other powers, hence China's warnings to stay away from "internal affairs" and "core Chinese interests" whenever and wherever it can get away with it.

China has shown several times that is is capable of acting irrationally over Taiwan, and the Chinese government is whipping up patriotic sentiment at home to take pressure off of social issues. This is starting to backfire as the public is becoming more zealous and pushing the Chinese government to be more aggressive on the world stage than it is currently prepared for. Thanks to its bullying efforts in the South China Sea, China's neighbors are running, not walking to America looking for help. Many in the public in both Vietnam and the Phillipines have been openly calling for war with China. China can't help but feel more isolated by this trend.

Hmmm, true. You do make a good point about the slowing growth of the Chinese economy. What they really need to do now is take all that exporting and turn it inward to bridge the gap between the internal and external sectors, and I think that's what the groundwork for the latest Five Year Plan is set out to do, which means that they still have another Five years at least where they'd screw themselves over with war. Which still puts us at about 2016-18 before things kick off, and by then they'll have the military muscle to be able to block any ideas the US has of intervening.
Of course, there could be any number of events that could transpire within even the next two weeks that could completely derail that prediction. A hardline military coup for example, a tsunami that hits Hong Kong or Shanghai, heck the Three Gorges Dam could collapse and send China back into the middle ages next month for all we know, it's certainly not the most stable dam in the world...
The trouble at the moment is that we have built such powerful weapon that we have priced ourselves out of the market. The F-22 Raptor, when it is not trying to gas its pilots, is currently the pinnacle of air weapons engineering, however its cost prevents it from being used to its full potential. The B-2 stealth bomber is a marvel of engineering but costs such a huge amount to build that there are only twenty of them. Of course, it can be argued that twenty is all you need, perhaps that is true, hopefully we'll never have to find out. But either way, we simply do not have the money to churn weapons out like Russia and China do, and bear in mind here that China and Russia both spend a helluva lot less of their GDP on the military than America does, because we have spent the last thirty years building up our militaries to fight the Soviets and letting the debts mount up, and now they've come home to roost.

[Torplexed]

Otherwise it's the usual terror groups, internal strife between Muslim immigrants and the right, conflicts over resources and minor border skirmishes.


Don't forget to keep an eye on dem evil Marshins! :D

http://pyxis.homestead.com/WoW.jpg

[Betonov]

heck the Three Gorges Dam could collapse and send China back into the middle ages next month for all we know, it's certainly not the most stable dam in the world...

Hey, that's not true, I worked on that project :stare:

[TLAM Strike]

Hey, that's not true, I worked on that project :stare:

hmmmm...
... seems there is a couple of people here from the ROCAF who want to talk to you...
:hmmm:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Ignoring your obvious bias given the nature of this forum (:03:), a submarine is definitely powerful, but it can't project power the same way a CVN battlegroup can.

A submarine can't neutralize enemy forces the way a battlegroup can, it can really only deny waterspace or take out certain facilities with missile strikes.
This is assuming that nukes are not being thrown around. A tac nuke or 2 could decimate a fleet. I love me my surface ships, but nowadays the submarine is the most deadliest single weapon the world has ever seen.

and when those ASMs start flying, you know whos gonna get whacked first...

Carriers are just too damned expensive, ginormous, and a bullet-magnet in the modern era of warfare. I long for the days when battleships were still a force to be reckoned with...

[MothBalls]

If only......

If we could take all of the money, all of the scientific efforts, all of the manpower, every resource being used to create military weapons of destruction, and refocus those resources on the real problems we are facing globally, we might actually make the world a nice enough place that we wouldn't need to have wars.

I know, it will never happen in our lifetimes, but we can still imagine... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7qaSxuZUg)

[Jimbuna]

Ignoring your obvious bias given the nature of this forum (:03:), a submarine is definitely powerful, but it can't project power the same way a CVN battlegroup can.

A submarine can't neutralize enemy forces the way a battlegroup can, it can really only deny waterspace or take out certain facilities with missile strikes.

A modern day attack sub would most likely take the CVN out of the battle group as has been proven on numerous exercises involving a US CVN.

This is assuming that nukes are not being thrown around. A tac nuke or 2 could decimate a fleet. I love me my surface ships, but nowadays the submarine is the most deadliest single weapon the world has ever seen.

and when those ASMs start flying, you know whos gonna get whacked first...

Carriers are just too damned expensive, ginormous, and a bullet-magnet in the modern era of warfare. I long for the days when battleships were still a force to be reckoned with...

Rgr that.

[Oberon]

If only Mothballs, if only...

And Torplexed, that goes without saying ;)

Betonov, when it was built it was in good condition but there have been reports of micro-fractures in the structure, aaand it's near about six active fault lines. Plus, of course, there's always the possibility of someone dropping a missile on it, although IIRC the PRC has stated that they would respond with nuclear weapons if someone did that...and I can't really say I blame them.

In terms of ASW in CVBGs (I still can't bring myself to use the modern term for them) it has certainly been shown in the past ten years or so that the USN needs to up its game a bit, particularly in terms of SSKs which the PRC has one or two of.

Personally if I were Hu Jintao I'd direct the navy towards investing in SSGNs and contact Tupolev to buy the license for the Tu-22M3, that would create a nice anti-carrier trifecta in SSGN SSM, ASM, and BASM. Launch a co-ordinated strike from all three of them at once into a carrier group...well...I wouldn't like to be in the radar room at the time, that's for certain...

"Vampire Vampire Vampire Vampire Vampire Vampire Vam-oh son of a-"

[Betonov]

Betonov, when it was built it was in good condition but there have been reports of micro-fractures in the structure, aaand it's near about six active fault lines.

Don't know about that and that's some bad construction, our local dam was built in 1949 and never needed a patch up since then.

I was involved with turbine blades construction, at least that I can guarantee it will survive doomsday :smug:

[Oberon]

Don't know about that and that's some bad construction, our local dam was built in 1949 and never needed a patch up since then.

I was involved with turbine blades construction, at least that I can guarantee it will survive doomsday :smug:

:yeah: Well, the whole design of the dam was an ecological disaster, it's completely wrecked the surrounding area in terms of river levels, sediment build up and the like, but since it's only peasants in the area it doesn't matter much to Beijing ;) Even the governmental mouthpiece the Xinhua news agency has admitted that the initial design of the dam could lead to an environmental catastrophe.
Apparently the dam is designed to withstand earthquakes up to 7.0, and local earthquakes have yet to exceed 6.0, however the weight of water in the reservoir behind the dam may exacerbate the seismic activity.
In theory it was a fantastic idea, in theory it was all that Mao wanted...but in fact it's probably Chinas biggest Achilles heel.

[sidslotm]

If we could take all of the money, all of the scientific efforts, all of the manpower, every resource being used to create military weapons of destruction, and refocus those resources on the real problems we are facing globally, we might actually make the world a nice enough place that we wouldn't need to have wars.



if only is right. Trouble is the monies generated by arms sales and military buildup programs, they seem to have the mysterious effect of sucking the blood from our brains and rendering the brain pretty much useless except for making war. Humans are blessed with the ability of talking themselves into conflict, they will even lie just to start a war, work that one out.

[AVGWarhawk]

Is it me or does anyone else feel there is a huge global military buildup going on. There seems to be somekind of global madness effecting our thinking, the UK is building two Aircraft carriers plus a small flotilla of Submarines, which in truth we can't afford. Russia, China, India, all seem to be busy building or launching warships. Canada and Australia also seem to be concerned about how seaworthy their boats are, and it looks like the pressure is on to build or buy new ones, but why and where is this pressure coming from, who's applying it and why.

The military build up does not look to have grown. I think it might be more in the general conscience and news. The US is constantly working on and building military items. IMO the military is a business.

[magicstix]

This is assuming that nukes are not being thrown around. A tac nuke or 2 could decimate a fleet. I love me my surface ships, but nowadays the submarine is the most deadliest single weapon the world has ever seen.

and when those ASMs start flying, you know whos gonna get whacked first...

Carriers are just too damned expensive, ginormous, and a bullet-magnet in the modern era of warfare. I long for the days when battleships were still a force to be reckoned with...

If nukes start flying a submarine anywhere in the vicinity will be dead as well, so this is a moot point.

The question isn't who would win in a scrap-up, as that's very much an open question based on individual crew skills and environmental factors.

The real point I'm making, is that you can't win a war with submarines alone. They are not power projectors. A CV battlegroup allows one to put real pressure on the enemy and allows one to actually dismantle their war making capability. Submarines at best can lob a few cruise missiles and maybe insert a specops team.

[TLAM Strike]

The real point I'm making, is that you can't win a war with submarines alone. They are not power projectors. A CV battlegroup allows one to put real pressure on the enemy and allows one to actually dismantle their war making capability. Submarines at best can lob a few cruise missiles and maybe insert a specops team. Unless your enemy is dependent on overseas trade (US, China, Japan) or has national goals off shore (Falklands, Taiwan). Then a submarine can put them in to ruin or deny them their end goals. :know:

[magicstix]

Unless your enemy is dependent on overseas trade (US, China, Japan) or has national goals off shore (Falklands, Taiwan). Then a submarine can put them in to ruin or deny them their end goals. :know:

I'll have to excuse myself from the war tactics discussion.

I will say I'd hate to be on a submarine in the Taiwan straights during a war. The water is too shallow and there's nowhere to hide. :(

[Betonov]

Plus, winning a war is not only destroying an enemy. If you deny the enemy to project that power over you, you already have a diplomatic advantage, a leverage at negotiations. A submarine can't project power, but can prevent you enemy to do so over you.

[CaptainMattJ.]

If nukes start flying a submarine anywhere in the vicinity will be dead as well, so this is a moot point.

The question isn't who would win in a scrap-up, as that's very much an open question based on individual crew skills and environmental factors.

The real point I'm making, is that you can't win a war with submarines alone. They are not power projectors. A CV battlegroup allows one to put real pressure on the enemy and allows one to actually dismantle their war making capability. Submarines at best can lob a few cruise missiles and maybe insert a specops team.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely you can win a war only with subs. However, if a submarine can sneak into a CVBG, and get off a couple missles and takes the CV (or CVs), guess what happens.
You lose an ungodly expensive boat with ungodly expensive equipment onboard along with ~2000 valuable seamen. That, and the whole point of the battlegroup is lost, thereby making that force now incapable of its most likely important mission.


And,a tac nuke isnt as ranged as a regular thermonuclear bomb, obviously, and therefore a submarine about a mile and a half away under 1000 feet of water could easily survive a tac nuke.

Not to mention how it could launch its payload against your docks, shipyards, and the civilian populace. can you win a war with only subs? its possible. A CVBG to help protect your landing ships from ASM missiles and aircraft would be great. but a war solely at sea can be won by submarines

[TLAM Strike]

And,a tac nuke isnt as ranged as a regular thermonuclear bomb, obviously, and therefore a submarine about a mile and a half away under 1000 feet of water could easily survive a tac nuke. More likely over 4 miles from the target since a nuclear torpedo could be expected to have a kill radius of about that.

[Jimbuna]

Unfortunately, it is unlikely you can win a war only with subs. However, if a submarine can sneak into a CVBG, and get off a couple missles and takes the CV (or CVs), guess what happens.
You lose an ungodly expensive boat with ungodly expensive equipment onboard along with ~2000 valuable seamen. That, and the whole point of the battlegroup is lost, thereby making that force now incapable of its most likely important mission.


And,a tac nuke isnt as ranged as a regular thermonuclear bomb, obviously, and therefore a submarine about a mile and a half away under 1000 feet of water could easily survive a tac nuke.

Not to mention how it could launch its payload against your docks, shipyards, and the civilian populace. can you win a war with only subs? its possible. A CVBG to help protect your landing ships from ASM missiles and aircraft would be great. but a war solely at sea can be won by submarines

Exactly the point I was originally trying to make.

[magicstix]

Exactly the point I was originally trying to make.

Simply put, submarines are not as invincible as the movies/games make them out to be. :>

Without their stealth, they don't have much left to play on. They can't take a hit and they can't run if they get spotted.

[Torplexed]

Simply put, submarines are not as invincible as the movies/games make them out to be. :>

Without their stealth, they don't have much left to play on. They can't take a hit and they can't run if they get spotted.

They're rarely without their stealth and they seem to be getting to damn close range with it.

http://www.internnett.de/files/zielfoto_u24_enterprise.jpg

[magicstix]

They're rarely without their stealth and they seem to be getting to damn close range with it.

http://www.internnett.de/files/zielfoto_u24_enterprise.jpg

The sad state of affairs in terms of ASW on surface ships these days is mostly a crew problem, not an equipment or superiority of submarines problem. :O:

[joegrundman]

The sad state of affairs in terms of ASW on surface ships these days is mostly a crew problem, not an equipment or superiority of submarines problem. :O:
why do you say that?

[Jimbuna]

They're rarely without their stealth and they seem to be getting to damn close range with it.

http://www.internnett.de/files/zielfoto_u24_enterprise.jpg

The second poster to affirm my point :salute:

[TLAM Strike]

The sad state of affairs in terms of ASW on surface ships these days is mostly a crew problem, not an equipment or superiority of submarines problem. :O:
That problem ain't limited to one navy then:
http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9305/periscopekieviilg.jpg

As far as actual combat records go submarines have a decent record since WWII 3 Ships sunk in 8 attacks with only two losses in combat (one an maybe an operational casualty). Most of the failures were from technical problems cause by 3rd world crews.

[magicstix]

why do you say that?

In a word, training. The surface navy has let their ASW skills decay significantly after the Cold War ended. Ask any bubblehead sonarman what he thinks of a skimmer sonarman, and you're not likely to get an answer that's fit to print.

A good book to read on the subject is "Lessons not learned: the U.S. Navy's status quo culture."

For submariners, sonar is life. For surface folks, it's just another thing to worry about.

The unfortunate reality is that surface sonarmen spend most of their time doing anything but sonar, as they're usually the first to get grabbed for odd jobs around the ship. Combine this with a mentality that ASW just isn't important, and you rarely have time to train or willingness to train.

IMO, what the Navy needs to do is rotate surface sonarmen through tours on submarines, and vice-versa to get the skimmers caught up on the finer points of sonar technique. At least then they'll be in a position to *find* the submarines, to say nothing of being able to go and kill them.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Unless your enemy is dependent on overseas trade (US, China, Japan) or has national goals off shore (Falklands, Taiwan). Then a submarine can put them in to ruin or deny them their end goals. :know:...or they could use aircraft, unless I have missed sub with area air defence capability - without telling everyone where it is.

In case of Taiwan air route maybe a bit challenging.

[MH]

That problem ain't limited to one navy then:


.

Take into consideration that this snapshot was taken in peace time when guards are relatively relaxed.

[TLAM Strike]

...or they could use aircraft, unless I have missed sub with area air defence capability - without telling everyone where it is.
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/5738/98366a.jpg
+
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6339/blowpipe01.jpg
=
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/1753/ssdgb.jpg
:rock:

[TLAM Strike]

Take into consideration that this snapshot was taken in peace time when guards are relatively relaxed.
This one better then?http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3494/belgranosunkcopy2.jpg

[MH]

This one better then?

:salute:

[Oberon]

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/1753/ssdgb.jpg
:rock:


Is this going to be in the next LWAMI mod? :hmmm::O:

[TLAM Strike]

Is this going to be in the next LWAMI mod? :hmmm::O:
Fear the Aegis Submarine!! :yep:

:O:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/1753/ssdgb.jpg
:rock:How many boilers this monster have? :hmmm:

This "boat" brings to my mind the Kalamity class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_K_class_submarine). :D

[mapuc]

Some weeks ago I saw a video on youtube. I can't remember what it was about. but I remember a viewer wrote, that his friend, who was in the army, had told him. that there are huge military movements in USA, Europe and Asia and they should be waiting to receive the red alert at any time.

I do not know about the knowledge of the american soldie, but here in Denmark or Sweden an ordinary soldier gets none info whatsoever.

Not like that I wrote about above.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Some weeks ago I saw a video on youtube. I can't remember what it was about. but I remember a viewer wrote, that his friend, who was in the army, had told him. that there are huge military movements in USA, Europe and Asia and they should be waiting to receive the red alert at any time.

I do not know about the knowledge of the american soldie, but here in Denmark or Sweden an ordinary soldier gets none info whatsoever.

Not like that I wrote about above.

Markus


It's space aliens man. Why do think we stopped going to the moon? They kicked us off that's why and now they're preparing to launch an invasion against earth.

I got my survival bunker all stocked up for the big one. Ain't no aliens gonna get me without a fight.


.

[magicstix]

It's space aliens man. Why do think we stopped going to the moon? They kicked us off that's why and now they're preparing to launch an invasion against earth.

I got my survival bunker all stocked up for the big one. Ain't no aliens gonna get me without a fight.


.

Nah, it's just the New World Order prepping for their overthrow of human civilization.

[mapuc]

It's space aliens man. Why do think we stopped going to the moon? They kicked us off that's why and now they're preparing to launch an invasion against earth.

I got my survival bunker all stocked up for the big one. Ain't no aliens gonna get me without a fight.


.

Don't be afraid. Every Aliens are like Paul. Just give him a joint and he will be your friend for life.

Markus

[Randomizer]

I suspect we're seeing just the opposite effect to that proposed by the OP.

Too be sure, armaments have increased in cost almost exponentially but firepower can be delivered with a theoretical accuracy that was only dreamed of in the Cold War era. Armed drones are far less destabilizing than fleets of bombers.

Most of the 30,000+ nuclear weapons deployed in 1989 have been dismantled, their fissile material often recycled as fuel for civilian power plants. The 40,000 Soviet tanks that were once perceived to be ready to pour across the Inter-German border have mostly become consumer goods after being scrapped as unnecessary. Chemical weapons arsenals have been mostly destroyed, there are fewer aircraft carriers at sea than at any time since the London Treaty was signed in 1930 and ideological differences between the global powers are not really seen as a cause for armed conflict anymore.

It seems that people have forgotten that the overwhelming tendency is for developed countries to wage war against each other in times of plenty, when surpluses can be spent freely and massive internal debts incurred to pay for it all. Right now nobody can afford to war on a whim and negotiation for disputed resources in invariably cheaper than combat when cash is low.

My wife considers me an incurable pessimist, something that I would certainly agree with but I really think that global war or even war between regional superpowers is off the table for the foreseeable future. To be sure, there will be speed bumps, assorted crisis' and the odd angry shot, but a repeat of the numbered World Wars or even a significant regional conflict in the early 21st Century is very unlikely in my opinion.

Opinion offered up with the caveat that you can't fix stupid so fear, demagoguery, paranoia and greed can change this prediction in unpredictable ways.

[magicstix]

I suspect we're seeing just the opposite effect to that proposed by the OP.

It seems that people have forgotten that the overwhelming tendency is for developed countries to wage war against each other in times of plenty, when surpluses can be spent freely and massive internal debts incurred to pay for it all. Right now nobody can afford to war on a whim and negotiation for disputed resources in invariably cheaper than combat when cash is low.


I disagree. Both Germany and Japan began their wars of aggression specifically *BECAUSE* they had high debt (in the case of Germany) and few resources (in the case of Japan).

We're seeing the exact same setup with China and the West. China needs resources to feed its economy, but can't pull enough of them together. The West is in massive debt, a lot of it to China, and a war could be seen as a way to get a clean slate financially.

China has always eyed Siberia jealously for its resources, and Russia has always eyed China suspiciously for this very reason. If and when China's economy collapses under its own weight, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if they used military means to get what they want.

[Randomizer]

I disagree. Both Germany and Japan began their wars of aggression specifically *BECAUSE* they had high debt (in the case of Germany) and few resources (in the case of Japan).
Fair ball but I think you are confusing the existence of debt with economic prosperity. In 1939 Germany was wealthier than it had ever been with surpluses sufficient to create a national television network, a national electronic airways system rivaling that of the USA and more sophisticated than that found in any other country, subsidized "Strength Through Joy" worker vacations, Autobahns and Volkswagen Beetles. These are not the trappings of economic weakness.

Likewise Japan had squandered much of her industrial wealth in a decade of fighting in China and military, particularly naval, expansion but had still seen a continual increase in per capita GDP through much of the Thirties. Only when the American trade embargo and seizure of Japaneses assets threatened what economic strength remained did the military junta resort to war.

Even the much maligned tactic of Appeasement as seen at Munich provided time for the Western Allies, particularly Britain, to ramp up their economies in preparation for war.

If lack of wealth causes wars, why was there peace between the economic powers during the Great Depression when wealth vanished throughout the global economy? Even Mussolini's Italy waited until economic growth had resumed before engineering a war with Ethiopia in 1935.

Resource wars are largely the subject of fiction and those that have occurred almost always have had deeper and more complex political causes lurking behind the hyperbole. My biggest concern for peace is that jingoistic paranoia, particularly with regards to the notional or imagined threats posed by the PRC might make fear of war become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For details on the belligerent's economies in the lead up to WW2 see The War of the World by Niall Ferguson.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

This one better then?http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3494/belgranosunkcopy2.jpg

Belgrano's escorts didn't have any demi-decent sonar. Though I agree with the point that surface vessels are more vulnerable to subs than they like to admit.

[TarJak]

Fair ball but I think you are confusing the existence of debt with economic prosperity. In 1939 Germany was wealthier than it had ever been with surpluses sufficient to create a national television network, a national electronic airways system rivaling that of the USA and more sophisticated than that found in any other country, subsidized "Strength Through Joy" worker vacations, Autobahns and Volkswagen Beetles. These are not the trappings of economic weakness.

Likewise Japan had squandered much of her industrial wealth in a decade of fighting in China and military, particularly naval, expansion but had still seen a continual increase in per capita GDP through much of the Thirties. Only when the American trade embargo and seizure of Japaneses assets threatened what economic strength remained did the military junta resort to war.

Even the much maligned tactic of Appeasement as seen at Munich provided time for the Western Allies, particularly Britain, to ramp up their economies in preparation for war.

If lack of wealth causes wars, why was there peace between the economic powers during the Great Depression when wealth vanished throughout the global economy? Even Mussolini's Italy waited until economic growth had resumed before engineering a war with Ethiopia in 1935.

Resource wars are largely the subject of fiction and those that have occurred almost always have had deeper and more complex political causes lurking behind the hyperbole. My biggest concern for peace is that jingoistic paranoia, particularly with regards to the notional or imagined threats posed by the PRC might make fear of war become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For details on the belligerent's economies in the lead up to WW2 see The War of the World by Niall Ferguson.Got to disagree with you on your point about resource wars being fictional. Japan's expansion in the 1930's and into the 40's was ALL about resources and access to them. It was no fiction that they needed access to oil, rubber etc. to continue their imperialist desires and that desire itself was due to the fact that Japan was largely shut out of resource trading by the Western Powers whose own imperial desires had led them to dominate most of Asia in order to gain the resources they needed to feed that desire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II#Competition_for_resources_a nd_markets

Germany's economic wealth in the later part of the 1930's was also deficit based, which meant that it was funded by loans which, in a number of historian's opinions, Hitler never intended to repay. Going to way was one way of doing that. In the four years before 1939, wages, and prices were fixed by the government and violators were interred in concentration camps. Their massive unemployment problems in the early 30's were solved in part by removing Jewish workers from the economy and replacing them with unemployed non-Jews.

By 1942, if they had not started using forced labour (strangely enough bringin Jews back to work), the German economy would have collapsed under the weight of their wartime efforts.

On China in 2011, does anyone not remember that during the GFC, China's economy was stimulated to the tune of US$586Billion??? Whilst America owed them some of that money, where did the rest come from? Also, it is estimated that about 20% of the loans made under the stimulus package are likely to be written off! That's a whopping $117Billion up in smoke! The Chinese way of dealing with bad loans is a bit different though: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43600432/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

[Oberon]

Belgrano's escorts didn't have any demi-decent sonar. Though I agree with the point that surface vessels are more vulnerable to subs than they like to admit.

The mere thought of Argentinas SSKs gave the British fleet kittens, heck if a dozy Argie engineer hadn't have put the umbilical cable to the San Luis's torpedoes in backwards then we could have lost at least two warships to her.
The Santa Fe also acted as a deterrent to our fleet until she was crippled by a DC attack and forced to surrender, and she was an old Balao class. :yep:

[sidslotm]

I wonder if you take the actual number of world leaders from every Nation and worked out how many people they accutaly represent globaly, then worked out how many leaders are actively carring out the wishes of all those humans, sorreee, I get carried away :har: .

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

The mere thought of Argentinas SSKs gave the British fleet kittens, heck if a dozy Argie engineer hadn't have put the umbilical cable to the San Luis's torpedoes in backwards then we could have lost at least two warships to her.
The Santa Fe also acted as a deterrent to our fleet until she was crippled by a DC attack and forced to surrender, and she was an old Balao class. :yep:Found this from Wikipedia:San Luis was free to patrol and this caused the British task force to be on the defensive at all times. The British expended most of their ordnance on suspected contacts, most of which were false contacts caused by the ocean's many anomalies. The British ships present to counter the Argentine submarine threat were: one carrier, eleven destroyers, five nuclear-powered submarines, one diesel submarine, and over 25 helicopters. Even though no ships were sunk by the San Luis, this is an impressive amount of ships to be tied up by one diesel powered submarine. This is more impressive considering that she was not even hit by the British force. —Lt Cdr Steven R Harper USN

[TLAM Strike]

The mere thought of Argentinas SSKs gave the British fleet kittens, heck if a dozy Argie engineer hadn't have put the umbilical cable to the San Luis's torpedoes in backwards then we could have lost at least two warships to her. She made a torpedo attack on a sub contact as well with a Mk37.

The Santa Fe also acted as a deterrent to our fleet until she was crippled by a DC attack and forced to surrender, and she was an old Balao class. :yep: The Brits tried to send a SSN after her but Conquer failed to get the message.

Belgrano's escorts didn't have any demi-decent sonar. Though I agree with the point that surface vessels are more vulnerable to subs than they like to admit.

INS Kukuri was equipped with a decent sonar and was taken out by a Down the Throat shot with a homing torpedo. INS Kirpan almost suffered the same fate put put the torpedo in to a stern chase and ran it to exhaustion.

The ROKS Cheonan didn't have a bad sonar but it wasn't good either. Its was a middle of the road type derived from the FFG-7's sonar and had a max range of 8 nmi.

[Oberon]

Indeed, and she fired a SST-4 torpedo at HMS Brilliant or Yarmouth, and missed. Then later she fired another two at HMS Arrow and Alacrity, one of which didn't leave the tube and the other went wide. That's four ships that if one Argentinian sailor hadn't wired the umbilical up wrong might well have been sunk.

[Oberon]

She made a torpedo attack on a sub contact as well with a Mk37.

The Brits tried to send a SSN after her but Conquer failed to get the message.



I didn't know she had Mk37s, I thought most of her gear was German. :doh: I wonder what the contact was...could have been Onyx with her duff bow tube.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Any good books on the naval side of the Falklands conflict? :hmmm: Just so I can add them to the ever-growing list of other titles I don't have time to read.

[TLAM Strike]

I didn't know she had Mk37s, I thought most of her gear was German. :doh: I wonder what the contact was...could have been Onyx with her duff bow tube.
Probably from the kit we sold them for the GUPPIES. Most likely it was a whale, but who knows. Both sides are still very 'hush hush' about the sub ops down there. :salute:

[TLAM Strike]

H.M.S. Spartan and H.M.S. Splendid Operations.
6
The Spartan and the Splendid sailed for the
South Atlantic on 1 April and arrived ten days later. To enforce the Maritime Exclusion Zone the
11 Spartan patrolled near Port Stanley to watch for reinforcements. In the period from 12 April to 30 April
on four consecutive days, she observed the Argentine Landing Ship, Tank AR.A Cabo San Antonio
conducting mine laying operations. The Splendid was assigned to patrol between the coast of
Argentina and the Falkland Islands.
When the naval task force arrived, the Spartan and Splendid moved to new patrol areas; to the
northeast and northwest of the Falkland Islands, respectively. On 29 April the Spartan gained visual
contact with three Argentine Type 42 destroyers* and reported this to Northwood.From a US Navy War College Paper. Looks like if the RN wanted the war to be bloodier they could have easily succeeded.

*I assume the author means one or more Type 42 plus one or more warships for a total of three as the ARA only had 2 Type 42s.

From the ARA perspective:
AR.A San Luis Operations.
2
The San Luis departed for patrol during the second week of April
and conducted one continuous patrol during the war. She was to patrol north of the Falkland Islands
and attack British ships as her rules of engagement permitted. She claims a total of three attacks, two
of which used the German-made SST-4 anti-surface ship torpedo and the other used an American-
made Mark 37 antisubmarine torpedo. The first approach, on 1 May, was on medium sized warships
with helicopters as identified by sonar only. These warships were the H.M.S. Brilliant and the H.M.S.
Yarmouth. The attack was unsuccessful and the San Luis was counterattacked for 20 hours with
depth charges and at least one torpedo.
3
10The second approach, on 8 May, was against a submarine. Twelve minutes after firing the
Mark 37 torpedo an explosion was heard from the bearing of the target The British report no losses of
submarines and thus the torpedo may have impacted against the bottom.
The final approach, on 10 May, also done without the periscope, was on a pair of destroyers:
the H.M.S. Arrow and H.M.S. Alacrty. One torpedo was fired at the ships. This attack was
unsuccessful, but a small explosion was heard on the correct bearing 6 minutes after firing the torpedo.
Later, when the Arrow was retrieving her towed countermeasure *it was damaged - conclusive proof
that British electronic countermeasures had outwitted the SST-4's homing device.'
4
An attack on the
second ship was not conducted since the distance had opened too quickly and the ship was now out of
range.
Problems with the torpedoes and shipboard torpedo systems contributed to the three misses.
The fire control computer on San Luis was out of service and the fire control solution had to be
calculated manually. Additionally, the wires broke on all the weapons shortly after firing which took
away the ability to steer the weapon after the time of fire. These problems and the opinion that the
torpedoes were fired with the submarine too deep, had direct influence on the outcome of each shot.
5
There is also evidence that the SST-4 torpedoes were not properly prepared in the torpedo room
before loading the weapons in the torpedo tubes. This error did not allow the torpedoes to arm
themselves after time of fire. If this is the case then all shots with these weapons would only be able to
damage a target with the kinetic force of the torpedo ramming the target There would be no explosion,
just a strike like that of a battering ram. The reports of a torpedo bouncing off the hull of a British ship
and the damage, but not total destruction, to Arrow's countermeasure sled are consistent with this
thesis. In both cases, if the torpedo had exploded the damage would have been much more severe;
the sled would have been totally destroyed and the ships sunk. The small explosions heard by the
Argentines may have just been the noise of the collision between the torpedoes and their targets.

Link (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDoQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FLocation%3DU2%26doc%3DGetTRDoc.pd f%26AD%3DADA279554&ei=3aCATtGhGuLh0QG0kKUd&usg=AFQjCNHcl12DcpXseRA8pI2870DQky_wZA&sig2=3-2yb_C-6slsy25bKXBz-Q)

[Randomizer]

Got to disagree with you on your point about resource wars being fictional. Japan's expansion in the 1930's and into the 40's was ALL about resources and access to them. It was no fiction that they needed access to oil, rubber etc. to continue their imperialist desires and that desire itself was due to the fact that Japan was largely shut out of resource trading by the Western Powers whose own imperial desires had led them to dominate most of Asia in order to gain the resources they needed to feed that desire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_...es_and_markets
Japan's aim was autarky, a totally self contained and prosperous economic system where there would be no requirement for foreign involvement. Resources were only part of the picture as was elimination of European colonial holdings in east Asia and a military/cultural requirement to dominate. You missed the latter part of my statement, that other factors are always included in so-called resource wars and frequently the resources are not the root cause but rather an incidental benefit. Had oil and rubber alone been Japan's goal, Pearl Harbor made no sense since Roosevelt would never have gone to war to save the Netherlands East Indies.
Germany's economic wealth in the later part of the 1930's was also deficit based, which meant that it was funded by loans which, in a number of historian's opinions, Hitler never intended to repay. Going to way was one way of doing that. In the four years before 1939, wages, and prices were fixed by the government and violators were interred in concentration camps. Their massive unemployment problems in the early 30's were solved in part by removing Jewish workers from the economy and replacing them with unemployed non-Jews.
The existence of deficit spending had more to do with the unhealthy taxation policy of Germany inherited from the federal Second Reich and the Republic. Until hostilities broke out Germany could easily service its debts and no unforeseen financial crisis was pending so the level of government spending remained significant. As for Hitler intending to default, we don't know since he never got the chance. That Germany defaulted on reparations payments, considered unfair and imposed at gun point, does not automatically indicate non-payment of legitimate debts.

The use of slave labour was an net economic drain and a bad idea for reasons that had nothing to do with the human cost. Slavery doesn't work in free market industrial economies and the Nazi pogrom against the Jews was entirely self-defeating from an economic standpoint alone. Also, Germany's labour shortage was exacerbated by a bloated Party apparatus and Civil Service that absorbed huge numbers of potential workers and the total failure to utilize German women in industry in any systemic way. Standing polices and inefficiencies, some endemic to the regime, others inherited from Wiemar created the conditions where slavery seemed to provide a quick fix.

[Ducimus]

It's no secret what China is up to. They're building a blue water navy specifically for challenging the USA in their obsession with Taiwan.. They're already starting to throw their weight around with their neighbors to enforce other policy goals like ownership of the South China Sea. This leads to all the regional powers wanting to build up their militaries to counter the Chinese threat.


Why china needs us:
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/world/2011/08/14/gps.why.china.needs.us.cnn

[Marcantilan]

Probably from the kit we sold them for the GUPPIES. Most likely it was a whale, but who knows. Both sides are still very 'hush hush' about the sub ops down there. :salute:

Along with Fatty, we wrote an essay about ARA San Luis war patrol, which Neal published in 2008 Submarine Almanac.

We pointed there that problems with SST-4s are not related with backward wiring or such (in fact, Telefunken repaired ALL Argentine torpedoes FOR FREE after the war). Also, that a Mk.37 were fired to an unknown contact, on May 8 1982, that was most probably a school of fish.

To stay in the case, I agree with the view that a submarine is not a power projection weapon. Is just a sea-denial assest, and thus, its use is limited to it: planes could fly above a submarine, armies could move inland near a shore where the submarine is hiding, submarines could not conduct visits to other ships and so on. Even that, the redeployment speed of a SSK is not great, this its strategic value is limited.

Yep, submarines are probably the most cost-effective assest for any navy, but have in mind that you could not have a navy only with subs.

[sidslotm]

Why china needs us:



I think this is bull, the problem is that professional USA and Europe pay themselves far to much and prop this up with borrowing.

[magicstix]

I think this is bull, the problem is that professional USA and Europe pay themselves far to much and prop this up with borrowing.

Agreed. China only needs us until they can get rid of us, which they're actively trying to do by attempting to make the dollar lose its reserve currency status.

They're also being very sneaky about buying US debt, they aren't holding it, they're using it to buy physical assets as fast as they can so they can slowly remove their vulnerability to the dollar, at which point, they won't care if the price collapses.

[TLAM Strike]

To stay in the case, I agree with the view that a submarine is not a power projection weapon. Is just a sea-denial assest, and thus, its use is limited to it: planes could fly above a submarine, armies could move inland near a shore where the submarine is hiding, submarines could not conduct visits to other ships and so on. Even that, the redeployment speed of a SSK is not great, this its strategic value is limited.

Yep, submarines are probably the most cost-effective assest for any navy, but have in mind that you could not have a navy only with subs.

I think that is a very common mistake. With the Ohio SSGNs we will start to see a major shift in how submarines operate. For example they can transport over sixty SEALs or Force Recon Marines. They have 154 UGM-109 missiles (about 1/2 of the number that was fired in the 1991 Gulf War) and can carry surveillance UAVs (same as the Jimmy Carter deployed over Yeonpyeong island). This is on a submarine converted from another role, not one purposely designed for it.

There really are not any major technical issues with building a submarine to carry troops or fighter aircraft. Such things were explored just after WWII, the carrying of troops was not seen as useful beyond SOF missions since any war was assumed to be a massive WWIII type scenario with tens of thousands of troops and VTOL aircraft were still mostly on the drawing board.

[mapuc]

Later on this night, the danish tv, is gonna show a interview, with the former ambassador to USA. He say that before 2020 USA have gone bankrupt and to prevent that, USA have to borrow from China.

He even say that USA have to give political confession to China.

Wonder how far USA a willing to go?

Markus

[magicstix]

I think that is a very common mistake. With the Ohio SSGNs we will start to see a major shift in how submarines operate. For example they can transport over sixty SEALs or Force Recon Marines. They have 154 UGM-109 missiles (about 1/2 of the number that was fired in the 1991 Gulf War) and can carry surveillance UAVs (same as the Jimmy Carter deployed over Yeonpyeong island). This is on a submarine converted from another role, not one purposely designed for it.

There really are not any major technical issues with building a submarine to carry troops or fighter aircraft. Such things were explored just after WWII, the carrying of troops was not seen as useful beyond SOF missions since any war was assumed to be a massive WWIII type scenario with tens of thousands of troops and VTOL aircraft were still mostly on the drawing board.

A submarine on the surface is a dead submarine. There will never be a submarine that carries aircraft.

[TLAM Strike]

A submarine on the surface is a dead submarine.
There was a time when submarines were designed to fight on the surface. They were quite successful. If a submarine could be equipped to defend its self from air attacks either with LR SAMs or Fighters then the submarine becomes very capable of defending its self on the surface.

There will never be a submarine that carries aircraft. http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/3245/aussub.jpg
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7272/britishsubmarinehmsm2.jpg
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/3895/93801818.jpg

[Randomizer]

A submarine on the surface is a dead submarine. There will never be a submarine that carries aircraft.
SSG's and SSGN's carry cruise missiles which meet every definition of aircraft even if they lack pilots.

[magicstix]

There was a time when submarines were designed to fight on the surface. They were quite successful. If a submarine could be equipped to defend its self from air attacks either with LR SAMs or Fighters then the submarine becomes very capable of defending its self on the surface.


There will never be a *modern* submarine that carries aircraft.

Submarines today aren't designed to fight on the surface, and for very good reason. Lack of hydrodynamics kills stealth for one. For two, WW2 era submarines didn't have to deal with the kinds of threats that subs have to deal with today. In WW2, sub on ship fights were generally close range engagements where the surface ship was more or less blind. Today subs can be detected long range and attacked at stand off.

There are no aircraft that could be fielded from a submarine. Neither harriers nor F-35Bs have folding wings, and even taking an Ohio class SSGN and dumping as much as you can to put aircraft on it would give you 2 or 3 aircraft at best, with NO air defenses added, and these are the second largest subs ever built. Add in all the machinery required and crew to support the aircraft, and you very quickly have an impractical design.

If the design was practical, it would've survived beyond WW2 and we'd have sub carriers today.

[magicstix]

SSG's and SSGN's carry cruise missiles which meet every definition of aircraft even if they lack pilots.

Except one definition: they can't kill other aircraft. :03:

[Randomizer]

Except one definition: they can't kill other aircraft. :03:
Airliners cannot kill other aircraft, neither could the Wright Flyer and they meet every definition of aircraft. As does the U-2, SR-71, B-2 and so on and so on.

For much of the 50's and 60's about half the USN carrier force lacked any offensive aircraft or organic air defence aircraft at all. These were the anti-submarine CVS and were aircraft carriers in every respect.

The ability to kill other aircraft has nothing whatsoever to do with what defines an aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft

[magicstix]

Airliners cannot kill other aircraft, neither could the Wright Flyer and they meet every definition of aircraft. As does the U-2, SR-71, B-2 and so on and so on.

For much of the 50's and 60's about half the USN carrier force lacked any offensive aircraft or organic air defence aircraft at all. These were the anti-submarine CVS and were aircraft carriers in every respect.

The ability to kill other aircraft has nothing whatsoever to do with what defines an aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft

Being able to kill other aircraft has absolutely everything to do with the definition of aircraft if you're talking about replacing a CVBG.

[TLAM Strike]

There will never be a *modern* submarine that carries aircraft.

Submarines today aren't designed to fight on the surface, and for very good reason. Lack of hydrodynamics kills stealth for one. For two, WW2 era submarines didn't have to deal with the kinds of threats that subs have to deal with today. In WW2, sub on ship fights were generally close range engagements where the surface ship was more or less blind. Today subs can be detected long range and attacked at stand off.

There are no aircraft that could be fielded from a submarine. Neither harriers nor F-35Bs have folding wings, and even taking an Ohio class SSGN and dumping as much as you can to put aircraft on it would give you 2 or 3 aircraft at best, with NO air defenses added, and these are the second largest subs ever built. Add in all the machinery required and crew to support the aircraft, and you very quickly have an impractical design.

If the design was practical, it would've survived beyond WW2 and we'd have sub carriers today.

The Oberon class isn't modern? They were only decommissioned 11 years ago!

Survived beyond WWII? Damn the SSM-N-8 Regulus missile could be launched from a Submarine and Land ashore if it aborted its mission:
http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5707/13929439gal.jpg
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/6333/regulus07.jpg
Bet'cha you never seen a nuclear missile with landing gear before!

Yes the F-35B and the Harrier don't have folding wings. Is there some fundamental law of aerodynamics that says a VTOL aircraft can't have folding wings?
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1024/yak38forgersondeck3.jpg
Didn't think so...

Interestingly a Harrier is shorter than a trident missile, and weighs six times less, so basically an Ohio class hull could carry 24 Harriers with about five reloads of stores and fuel. OMG an Ohio SSVN is looking better than an Invincible class carrier! :haha:

As I mentioned before the USS Jimmy Carter deployed a surveillance UAV over Yeonpyeong island following the North Korean attack on the island last year. (So for those keeping score at home that is a submarine, launching an aircraft, under combat conditions). The German Type 212 U Boats are going to be outfitted with three short range Aladin UAVs and a 30MM Rheinmetall cannon on a mast.

[magicstix]

Interestingly a Harrier is shorter than a trident missile, and weighs six times less, so basically an Ohio class hull could carry 24 Harriers with about five reloads of stores and fuel. OMG an Ohio SSVN is looking better than an Invincible class carrier! :haha:

As I mentioned before the USS Jimmy Carter deployed a surveillance UAV over Yeonpyeong island following the North Korean attack on the island last year. (So for those keeping score at home that is a submarine, launching an aircraft, under combat conditions). The German Type 212 U Boats are going to be outfitted with three short range Aladin UAVs and a 30MM Rheinmetall cannon on a mast.

The point is not that there's a law that says VSTOL can't have folding wings, the point is to spin up a sub carrier program would also require spinning up a fighter program.

Length and weight are more or less irrelevant. You also have to take into account wingspan and crewing requirements in your idea. You can't just store 24 harriers vertically and expect things to work. It's ridiculous to think that because you have 24 missile tubes you can fit 24 harriers on an Ohio class. Missiles don't need extra fuel or maintenance; they're a complete package.

There's so much support infrastructure you'd need for an embarked airwing.

Look at the USS Wasp. It carries 1/4th the number of harriers in your design, but it's 3 times wider, almost twice as long as, and has a crew nearly 10x larger than an Ohio class SSBN. Even getting rid of everything else an LHD does, you're not going to fit an airwing in the same footprint.

Tactically it doesn't make sense either, you're going to need AWACS to make your airwing useful (try fitting one of those on a sub), you need search and rescue capabilities for downed pilots, and the fact that you'd have to spend most of your time on the surface to do air operations will negate the stealth capabilities you're trying to achieve in the first place.

[mapuc]

maybe not the right thread...

In 15 to 20 years from now China have occupied Taiwan and USA/Europe haven't done nothing.

China just say to the american: if you and your allied close your eyes we will reduce your debt by xxxx billions.

Got this, idea when I saw an interview with the former ambassador to USA.

He said so (we will get Taiwan somehow)

Markus

[magicstix]

maybe not the right thread...

In 15 to 20 years from now China have occupied Taiwan and USA/Europe haven't done nothing.

China just say to the american: if you and your allied close your eyes we will reduce your debt by xxxx billions.

Got this, idea when I saw an interview with the former ambassador to USA.

He said so (we will get Taiwan somehow)

Markus

China may be the largest foreign holder of US debt depending on the day of the week (the position actually trades back and forth between China and Japan), but they still don't hold a majority of the debt. China forgiving the entirety of our debt wouldn't even drop it by 10%. The problems between China and the US go deeper than just Taiwan, unfortunately. They're becoming a destabilizing force in Asia, and their foot dragging on and out right blocking in the UN of other efforts that are central to US interests such as Iran tends to not go over well with us.

[Tribesman]

They're becoming a destabilizing force in Asia, and their foot dragging on and out right blocking in the UN of other efforts that are central to US interests such as Iran tends to not go over well with us.
So they are doing the same as any of the five and are doing the same as they have all done for decades.

[CCIP]

Here's a billion ways in which aircraft-carrying subs have existed and continue to do so.

http://www.combatreform.org/submarineaircraftcarriers.htm

IMO the future's looking brighter than ever for them. Much less so for surface carriers - and manned aircraft and surface combat groups as such. I think within 20-30 years we'll see some very dramatic extinctions in types of weapons that dominated the battlefields of the last century. Large surface combatants, manned aircraft, and battle tanks are heading the way of the dreadnoughts sooner than we might expect.

[sidslotm]

Here's a billion ways in which aircraft-carrying subs have existed and continue to do so.



Interesting site this. A thought that pops to mind "where there's a will, there's away"

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I personally don't see replacing surface aircraft carrier with submarines feasible option in current situation and I don't see them coming reality within next 20-30 years. I agree that fitting submarine with UAVs works in special roles.

Here are some questions which in my opinion should be answered very well before making submarine aircraft carrier viable:

1. Do it need to surface? If yes how it...
a) stays undetected
b) defends itself against enemy combatants like aircraft and missiles
c) submarine hull is not designed for surface operations - it have low freeboard among other problems - how it would be adapted to fit to both submerged and surface operation without excessively compromising each other including such parametres as stealth?

2. If surfacing isn't necessary then...
a) how it launches its aircraft
b) how it recovers its aircraft
c) if submarine have to move to avoid enemy combatants how aircraft find back home
d) how to prevent enemy following where those aircraft are going and launching bunch of missiles carrying ASW torpedoes to that location?

3. If submarine launches and retrieves its aircraft underwater...
a) in what depth it should be - how independently it can move during flight operations to avoid detection
b) submarine relyies into its stealth - how would it maintain it during flight operations - remember noise is big no-no

4. Unless fail-proof* AI is developed...
a) where and by who command & control would be arranged
b) how and by what means would AI determine who is enemy, who is friend and who is neutral?

Your opinions ladies and gentlemen?

*includes not becoming hostile to its creators

[Castout]

Ignoring your obvious bias given the nature of this forum (:03:), a submarine is definitely powerful, but it can't project power the same way a CVN battlegroup can.

A submarine can't neutralize enemy forces the way a battlegroup can, it can really only deny waterspace or take out certain facilities with missile strikes.

True, the best attack SSN is only a tactical weapon. However SSBNs are strategic weapon but one which is used solely as a deterrent.

Carrier battle group however can deny enemy control of their own airspace and hit both tactical and strategic targets on the ground. Carrier battle group presence is much more obvious and it makes a huge deterrent too to smaller navy and air force and army thus it is often used as tools to apply political pressure by the politicians and to avoid war. In comparison while submarine too has a deterrent role at sea and limited ground, it can never be used to apply political pressure unless it has sunk something, due to the basis of its stealth operation, thus escalating the situation towards an arms conflict. But still you cannot win war by air supremacy alone. Ultimately boots on the ground will have to grab the victory from the enemy's hands.

Good post.

Furthermore as US dominion is waning, the world is guaranteed to see more conflicts.

[sidslotm]

falling military expenditure ah, :haha:


http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7633/bulldozerq.jpg

[Cohaagen]

Found this from Wikipedia:
San Luis was free to patrol and this caused the British task force to be on the defensive at all times. The British expended most of their ordnance on suspected contacts, most of which were false contacts caused by the ocean's many anomalies. The British ships present to counter the Argentine submarine threat were: one carrier, eleven destroyers, five nuclear-powered submarines, one diesel submarine, and over 25 helicopters. Even though no ships were sunk by the San Luis, this is an impressive amount of ships to be tied up by one diesel powered submarine. This is more impressive considering that she was not even hit by the British force. —Lt Cdr Steven R Harper USN

:down:

I'm afraid that good Lt Commander is either misinformed, exploiting the elasticity of the facts, or, more likely, being disingenuous. Either way he is talking crap. The number of ships he quotes (inaccurately as it happens) represents almost the entire Task Force, yet he clearly gives the impression that they were all dedicated to tracking down one Argentine sub.

The rest of the paper is a mess. He claims the Argentines wanted, and executed, a "bloodless" invasion, which fails to explain why they fired white phosphorous into the (empty) Moody Brook barracks in the dead of night. He naively swallows the conceit that the Argentines only invaded to force a diplomatic resolution, and only planned a temporary stay. Their various military claims are accepted uncritically, such as the bizarre idea that the Santa Fe remained on the surface while under helicopter attack because it was "safer", rather than it being due to the fact that she had been repeatedly hit by AS12 missiles, depth charges, and hundreds of rounds of 7.62mm. Moreover, he uses outdated sources from the early-mid 80s over better and more recent works whenever they support his contentions. Then there are silly little errors, torpedoes mistakenly described as "exploding under (Belgrano's) keel", etc.

For all the praise of the Argentine subs, successful ASW is determined by numbers of ships lost, not enemy submarines sunk, and by any measure it was a British success. Another reason for this might be revealed by looking at the difference between the two forces in terms of aggression and determination to prosecute the kill: San Luis fired from 10,000 and 5,500 yds in her attacks - much too far away, scoring no kills - Conqueror getting two good hits at 1,500 before escaping unmolested.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

For all the praise of the Argentine subs, successful ASW is determined by numbers of ships lost, not enemy submarines sunk, and by any measure it was a British success. Another reason for this might be revealed by looking at the difference between the two forces in terms of aggression and determination to prosecute the kill: San Luis fired from 10,000 and 5,500 yds in her attacks - much too far away, scoring no kills - Conqueror getting two good hits at 1,500 before escaping unmolested.

The optimum distance to fire torpedoes is a function of the amount of improvement of pK achievable from a closer shoot versus the probability of counterdetection and counterattack from the other side.

Conqueror had to close to 1,500 because her homing torpedoes are anti-sub, have small warheads, slow, and are not the most reliable things forcing a reliance on straight running torpedoes for which closing to less than 2,000. Further, she was able to close because the Argies have crappy ASW in general.

If Conqueror had Spearfish torpedoes (after their reliability had been improved), if she still shot at 1,500 it might have worked because the Argies sucked but it'll still be foolhardy.

If Conqueror shot at 1,500 against a British formation, it will likely have been termed somewhere between stupid and suicidal.

[magicstix]

The optimum distance to fire torpedoes is a function of the amount of improvement of pK achievable from a closer shoot versus the probability of counterdetection and counterattack from the other side.

Conqueror had to close to 1,500 because her homing torpedoes are anti-sub, have small warheads, slow, and are not the most reliable things forcing a reliance on straight running torpedoes for which closing to less than 2,000. Further, she was able to close because the Argies have crappy ASW in general.

If Conqueror had Spearfish torpedoes (after their reliability had been improved), if she still shot at 1,500 it might have worked because the Argies sucked but it'll still be foolhardy.

If Conqueror shot at 1,500 against a British formation, it will likely have been termed somewhere between stupid and suicidal.

Tigerfish isn't exactly an "anti-sub" torpedo. They just chose not to fire them.

[Castout]

Tigerfish isn't exactly an "anti-sub" torpedo. They just chose not to fire them.

Tigerfish if I remember correctly doesn't have warhead big enough to sink a cruiser decisively.

It's relatively small and has short leg. :DL

Almost every guided torpedo can be used against both surface and subsurface targets, just that not every one would be of the same effectiveness against one or the other.

So a primarily anti sub torpedo does offer an anti surface capability though it usually means shorter engagement range and more needed to ensure a kill against large surface warship.

[magicstix]

Tigerfish if I remember correctly doesn't have warhead big enough to sink a cruiser decisively.

It's relatively small and has short leg. :DL

Tigerfish is an ASuW torpedo that's about 21 feet long. It has both legs and bite.

[Castout]

Tigerfish is an ASuW torpedo that's about 21 feet long. It has both legs and bite.

Well its payload is only 134 kg and its range is a mere 6.9nm(nautical miles) at max speed.

For comparison a heavy torpedo usually carry over 200 or even over 250 kg of warhead and has a range of over 10nm even to 20nm range at max speed.

Mark 8 torpedoes which were used had a warhead of 175kg in comparison.

edit: But to be fair perhaps Tigerfish then was considered a heavyweight torpedo and considered to have a long leg.