Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat
this may be heresy around here...
...but does the US really need 70 nuclear subs, including 40+ LA class attack subs?
seems to me you could scrap 20 LA class subs without having any effect on US defence capability.
|
Try thinking operationally.
50 boats.
25% in overhaul, intermediate upkeep (that's in drydock).
25% in standdown and train up for deployment. This also includes weekly training operations or quickie "missions"
25% transiting to or from deployment.
25% on active deployment. (That's peace time war patrol for you nubs.)
That leaves effective 12 boats on mission, with another 12 for possible re-tasking.
Ships sensors allow coverage of about 2,600 to 7,000 square miles.
With 12 boats, thats 31,200 to 84,000 square miles.
The oceans cover how many square miles?
There are 40% less boats than 20 years ago, but the current mission tasking is the same or even greater.
The Chinese are spending more money and resources on submarines than they are on surface combatants.
India is leasing Soviet Akula class boats. And I think we can expect more "leasing" by the Russians.
Iran has 4 Kilo class diesel boats.
Dollar for dollar, capability for capability, the submarine is the most effective ocean platform for interdiction (or denial) at sea than any surface "target". (And nations that desire a blue water navy realize this.)
But they are not as glamorus as the BIG surface weanies, like carriers.
