Astute vs Virginia

[Bellman]

Pingjockey: '' I speak well on this topic'' .... Really !

1) '' Although I will say that the brits do seem to know what there doing. '' ..... Big of you !

2) ''As a US sonar tech and qualfied sonar supervisor '' .....If you say so

3) ''And from a tech standpoint the virgina is still a better boat. '' ....Where is your reasoned argument ?

4) ''.......showing them a thing or to .. '' .... So you have issued a challenge and SeaQueen has accepted it ................
but you have not publicly responded ............................yet ?

09-14. Edited by Bellman - My other criticisms were not relevant and have been deleted (see below )
Pingjockey deserved better - I have PMd my appology.

[Bellman]

The poll has no validity - the people motivated to respond can be expected to place votes on a nationalistic basis ! Bulls**t beats brains ?

[SeaQueen]

Originally Posted by Bellman

Bulls**t beats brains ?

You'd be amazed at how frequently that occurs.

[DAB]

I'm suprised that no one has raised the issue of differences in combat doctrine between the two navy's. Its been touched on, but not explicitly mentioned.

The question that has to be asked is whether if the submarine was transfered to the other navy, it would be capable of performing equally well or better then that navys own sub.

Without a point of reference, you can't answer the question.

[Dr.Sid]

Where can I get some info about this new British sub ? Virginia is more versatile, cheaper Seawolf, first with non-penetrating scope (photomast), right ?

[Henson]

No, Virginia is not at all like Seawolf, which is actually becoming an older platform (it's been well over a decade guys). I've worked with both, and Virginia is like.... Virginia.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead Nuke

You talked about RN submariners. When my boat pulled in over in that part of the world I got a tour of one of the british nuke boats. I do not recall the class but the differences in ship design were striking. While you recognize the general layout the RN boat was obviously more combat oriented. One thing I noticed hast was that they had a LOT less creature comforts. The ones they DID have seems better than ours but overall, it was more spartan and much more well, businesslike. But then again, they typically would have much less distance to go to get into the thick of things. Do brit boats do 90+ day deployments? I presume so but I never asked.

One thing that I have ALWAYS remembered was when I was in the torpedo room and one of my shipmates (a torpedoman) was talking shop with one of his RN counterparts. They were talking about putting a topedo in the water and my guy asked about the torpedo door interlocks (USN boats have a device that prevent you from opening the OUTER door unless the INNER door is closed). His comment was that if you were STUPID enough to open both the bloody doors at the same time you deserved what you got. That they did not uses the things. Bravado on the brits part? I dunno, but he shook our guy up a lot.

That and a few discussions with other crewmen did tell me a lot of their training. They do not let ANYONE stand a watchstation unless they KNOW what they are doing. They do not tolerate adequate performance. You were a top performer or you were on a surface ship.

we typically do more than 90 patrols and in most case deploy for 10-11 months away from base ports, the technology that stops outer and innner doors opening at the same time was brought in by the royal navy so yes we do have the equipment ,subs are not about comfort there about adequet living condidtions for the purpose , and having been on US subs and Royal navy subs we have far more safety equipment than any other boats and we put this safety above everything else thats why we have never lost a nuc boat the perisher course provides us with the best trained dedicated command officers and the quality of the senior and junior ratings is outstanding i have served for 19 years on valiant spartan superb splendid sceptre and resolution and i have never met a bunch of fantastic down to earth guys to work with and yes we do get out of hand on a run ashore but ut our moto is work hard play harder

[Ramius]

Originally Posted by micky1up

......and yes we do get out of hand on a run ashore but ut our moto is work hard play harder

I've no idea what your on about there Micky

Might have to test it out in the Imps, Royal etc in a month or so

[Pingjockey]

Only back in the poles for a few days and of course I have pissed people off already.

1) Regardless of if you beleave that I am in the US Navy is not my concern. Neal has been on my boat and there is a pic of me and him in the torpedo room.
2) Sure there is an open challenge and I would love to have a few people in on it.
3) The US and Brits tactics are different but the same. Any brits out there that would like to play sometime I would love to demostrate some tatics.

And lastly, this post was not meant to piss anyone off. Both the British Navy and the US Navy are on the same team (Last time I checked anyway) and I think that we can all learn something from each other. So, I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way.

STS1

Pingjockey

[Kapitan]

This forum is ment to be a place to share ideas and information, pingjockey is right British america even russia are on the same team now both the VA and astutes are highly capible units, and i have no doubt they will perform beyond expectation of thier designers.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by Pingjockey

Only back in the poles for a few days and of course I have pissed people off already.

1) Regardless of if you beleave that I am in the US Navy is not my concern. Neal has been on my boat and there is a pic of me and him in the torpedo room.
2) Sure there is an open challenge and I would love to have a few people in on it.
3) The US and Brits tactics are different but the same. Any brits out there that would like to play sometime I would love to demostrate some tatics.

And lastly, this post was not meant to piss anyone off. Both the British Navy and the US Navy are on the same team (Last time I checked anyway) and I think that we can all learn something from each other. So, I am sorry if I offended anyone in any way.

STS1

Pingjockey

not pissed off dude just sharing facts and info

[Sub Sailor]

May never happen on this forum, but I would really like to see in real life the British, French, Russians, and the US to accept we are in a new era with terrorism, and in my opinion, the resurgence of China all of us have more to gain working together, sharing info, and yes operating together.
Oh before anyone goes ballistic, and chastises me for not mentioning country X, this is a sub forum post about nuke boats so I only use the countries that currently are operating Nukes. China has them and from what I am reading is improving them along with their whole Navy, but they are a long way from cooperating with the above mentioned counties. I also predict the next "Cold War" will be with China against players to be named later.


Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[DAB]

Originally Posted by Sub Sailor

May never happen on this forum, but I would really like to see in real life the British, French, Russians, and the US to accept we are in a new era with terrorism, and in my opinion, the resurgence of China all of us have more to gain working together, sharing info, and yes operating together.
Oh before anyone goes ballistic, and chastises me for not mentioning country X, this is a sub forum post about nuke boats so I only use the countries that currently are operating Nukes. China has them and from what I am reading is improving them along with their whole Navy, but they are a long way from cooperating with the above mentioned counties. I also predict the next "Cold War" will be with China against players to be named later.

Despite the arguments that seem to have suddenly appeared out of nowhere on this thread, I think there is a general consensus on what your saying.

However,

What you say does highlight one of the major differences between the combat doctrines that have dominated the latter development of both the Virginia and the Astute - terrorism.

The Virginia reflects the US doctrine that warfare is shifting towards dealing with insurgance groups. The Virginia is a strike platform, as well as an attack vessal. Her ability to launch a salvo of cruise missiles whilst hidden off a countries coast reflects this. It is the same doctrine that has seen the conversion of some Ohio SSBN's into SSGN's.

The Royal Navy however does not see Submarines as part of the war on terror. Very little in the way the British Military is structured has changed post Sept 11th 2001. Royal Navy subs are primarily used as platforms designed to deny an opponent the freedom of the seas so that the Surface Fleet can operate safely. The Tomahawk capability operated by British Subs is clearly a secondary capability in the eyes of strategic planners. When Royal Navy Subs do use their cruise missiles, they do so as part of a carrier group, or some other type of taskforce - in other words they only do so when they are being covered, they do not do so in isolation.

[micky1up]

Originally Posted by DAB

Despite the arguments that seem to have suddenly appeared out of nowhere on this thread, I think there is a general consensus on what your saying.

However,

What you say does highlight one of the major differences between the combat doctrines that have dominated the latter development of both the Virginia and the Astute - terrorism.

The Virginia reflects the US doctrine that warfare is shifting towards dealing with insurgance groups. The Virginia is a strike platform, as well as an attack vessal. Her ability to launch a salvo of cruise missiles whilst hidden off a countries coast reflects this. It is the same doctrine that has seen the conversion of some Ohio SSBN's into SSGN's.

The Royal Navy however does not see Submarines as part of the war on terror. Very little in the way the British Military is structured has changed post Sept 11th 2001. Royal Navy subs are primarily used as platforms designed to deny an opponent the freedom of the seas so that the Surface Fleet can operate safely. The Tomahawk capability operated by British Subs is clearly a secondary capability in the eyes of strategic planners. When Royal Navy Subs do use their cruise missiles, they do so as part of a carrier group, or some other type of taskforce - in other words they only do so when they are being covered, they do not do so in isolation.

sorry friend your wrong all our ssn's can now fire TLAM and have done so in the adriatic and the gulf war 2 and they operate not in strike groups but completely independant of the surface ships whilst keeping mind that join operation are going to happen , what your talking about isnt navy policy but political goverment policy we choose not to use TLAM in the same way because we have a far greater understanding of anti terroist oprations than the US duz indiscriminate bombing dosent win hearts and minds saying that we always have the options to use the TLAM in the same way as the US.

[Kapitan]

In 1999 British submarines singlehandedly not assigned to task forces fired tomahawk cruise missiles inot kosovo, in 2003 the same happend in iraq.

British submarines are mainly in service to protect the fragile fleet and also to be sent out ahead of the main fleet should war break out and a vessel has to get there within a matter of a few days.
Afterall a nuclear submarine can hit +33 knots all the way to say the falklands and be ahead of the main battle group by a week or two, and thus being in the area to stop further landings and deny enamies that viatl bit of time to get ready.

The british only have the defence side of things worked out, our navy is not large enough to support an attack role even though it can do this i dont think attack is what we realy need from our navy seeing as we get along with 90% of the world.

This is why the British SSN's are built without VLS tubes, they are designed to defend by attacking, however the americans policy of strike first is clearly shown by the fact they have got 4 ohio SSGN's and VLS capible submarines.

America has the navy to attack we dont.