SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Britain's naval power on the skids

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Britain's naval power on the skids (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=105878)

Agreed kinda with xabbarus theres no need to be in iraq or afghanistan that is an american war they bombed the twin towers it was on american soil as far as i see it the thing is an american problem same for iraq they invaded thier problem.

they shift the crap to us and we are the ones who end up paying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitan

America is currently deactivating 3 to 1 which means for every 3 submarines paid off 1 is brought into active service idealy you want to keep it 1 on 1

Ah, but all the ones getting retired are the older 688 unimproved class. Those are to be replaced by our new Virginia's, but in two years that may never happen. Besides, it takes forever to build a Virginia.

Oh, I appreciate the idea behind our forces being out there, I mean, although it was the twin towers that got bombed, we've not been exactly short of terrorist related problems in Britain, and we're there for our allies...but at the moment, we're projecting more force than we can actually follow through with, we can help America...but we've got to retire, regroup and rearm before getting ourselves involved in any more conflicts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Sure i snap my fingers and theres the remedy, but seriously.

If america stopped spending so much time effort and money in iraq then it would have alot more money to play with currently theres going to be one big defecit come the end of it all!

America is pushing more and more on its land based troops to do more and more things is ill equiped to deal with (same as the UK).

So what should we have done?

Turn the clocks back to 2002 time is rife to invade iraq saddam hussien is in his late 60's early 70's so he is blocking weapons inspections big deal, theres other ways and means around this why not use them? be cheaper in the long run spies and spec ops teams can go in and scout out the place they do it daily in panama.

so its not 2003 you sent the spec ops teams and spies in you currently moiter the situation chances are saddam is going to die inside the next 12 years due to some illness age related.

So far you have spent just a fraction of the total cost of an invasion.

You now have a few extra billion dollars to play about with result well build and improve current naval and air force as well as other millatery equipment.

That 600 ship navy isnt far away now is it looks more appealing doesnt it?

come 2012 saddam dies of a heart attack the country is in rack and ruin its civil war ****es v muslims what should we do now?

Invade to keep the peace set up a democratic government that takes into consideration both sides (****e and muslim) its still less than the real 2003 invasion !

Iraqies thank you for the peace and instead of killing you they thankyou for making them safer not to mention free

so now its 2015 only a small peace keeping force remains iraq is doing well and stable.

Worked in bosnia why not in iraq?

by doing it that way you prbly saved a good few billion that could be spent on upgrading or even putting new FFG's and patrol craft into service and also allowing the navy to buy the DDX rather than the CNO and top admirals having a jaff over the artist impressions of the things, meaning that the navy would eventualy be in a better position in the long run.

Sources come from a wide range of places interfax, BBC, ABC, CNN, FAS,golbal security and many many others some of the figures come from janes and also publicaly availible sources.

I agree, i think that it would have been better to not innitiate a whole scale invasion right at the start of the war, i think your idea is good and practical. I do think though that it is a good way to send a message out to terrorists. its pretty much that if you mess with the US you'll get a boot in your a**, in the words of Toby Keith. I'm kind of split 50/50 on this issue, i think that the invasion of Iraq was not the best tactical move in the book, but also it was probably a good swift counter attack to 9/11. I dont know, Any Opinions on this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapitan

America is currently deactivating 3 to 1 which means for every 3 submarines paid off 1 is brought into active service idealy you want to keep it 1 on 1

Yep!, right again ASWnut(whatever the # is) :up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by loynokid

i think that the invasion of Iraq was not the best tactical move in the book, but also it was probably a good swift counter attack to 9/11. I dont know, Any Opinions on this?

How in the world was it a counter to 9/11?

For the 5 millionth time:

Iraq was aiding the terrorists. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER TOPIC. IF WE ARE TO ARGUE, LET US MAKE A NEW THREAD.:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

For the 5 millionth time:

Iraq was aiding the terrorists. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER TOPIC. IF WE ARE TO ARGUE, LET US MAKE A NEW THREAD.:)

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=97846
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-al_Qaeda_Connection

just answering loynokid, if he wants to make a new thread, it's his prerogative. No argument here :)

Iraq was Helping Terrorists

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Quote:

Originally Posted by loynokid

i think that the invasion of Iraq was not the best tactical move in the book, but also it was probably a good swift counter attack to 9/11. I dont know, Any Opinions on this?

How in the world was it a counter to 9/11?

Iraq was helping terrorists. We noticed, so we invaded them, thats what happens if you help someone that attacked the US

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASWnut101

For the 5 millionth time:

Iraq was aiding the terrorists. BUT THAT'S ANOTHER TOPIC. IF WE ARE TO ARGUE, LET US MAKE A NEW THREAD.:)

Im sry, didnt mean to come across as arguing, just civilized debating... lol ;)

How many virginias are planned ?

From the Virginia's wiki:

Quote:

Ships

Virginia (SSN-774), commissioned and in service
Texas (SSN-775), commissioned and in service
Hawaii (SSN-776), delivered in 2006.
North Carolina (SSN-777), named December 11, 2000; delivery in 2008; this is the last ship of the First Block or "Flight"

New Hampshire (SSN-778) has been ordered for delivery in 2010
New Mexico (SSN-779) has been ordered for delivery in 2011
SSN-780 was ordered in 2005 and is expected to be delivered in April, 2011
SSN-781 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013
SSN-782 was ordered in 2006 and is expected to be delivered in 2013
SSN-783 is expected to be ordered in 2008; this is the last ship of the Second Block or "Flight"

SSN-784 through approximately SSN-791 are planned to make up the Third Block or "Flight" and should begin construction in 2009

Only about 18 then thats not even 1/4 of the current fleet whats more the 688 series went to 62 i dont think the USA will ever commission that many submarines again for a long time.

About 40 would be a comftable number for the USN i think.

This is off of FAS:

SSN 774-803 = 30 Boats planned, with three already built (USS Hawaii, USS Texas, and USS Virginia)

They are to be commissioned between now and the year 2020.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn.htm (go to the bottom of the page where the boats are listed)

P.S. Anyone know why they wen't back to naming them after states? That was reserved for the boomers only.

Thing is though, since the USSR went west, it's hard for governments to justify any large scale expenditure in the military. Take a look at the Upholder program for example, they were designed, built and then promptly mothballed in the space of four years. The original plan was to build twelve, but then that got put back to ten, and then to nine as the Berlin wall fell down, and in the end they only built four!

The USS Los Angeles was commissioned in 1976, and the US was still churning them out even after the wall came down, probably because most of them were awarded before 1989 and so the last of the class were probably still being put together. In fact I think the Pasadena was the last of the LAs to be commissioned before the end of the Cold War.

The advanced Seawolf class, originally meant to be produced to a number of 29, wound up at 3 because of the end of the Cold War and the resulting budget cuts to the military.

The people who assign the budgets to the military can only view the then and now, the present threats, they seem to have a strange inability to consider the threats of the future, they aren't able to think of a time in the future when we might look back and think: "Damn...we should have kept with the original number of boats ordered."

And it's because of that our navy gets smaller, and smaller.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Agreed,:know: that's a great point to bring up because its right on the money.:yep: I dont think anyone can really put up a fair argument over this post (exept if your tchochy);) no just joking :lol::rotfl:, yeah, i agree.:up: