US Navy Wouldn't Last a Week in WW3

a reply to: crazyewok

Ah gotcha. There's a lot of debate as to which is the better sub. It's damn close. The Block III Virginia with the new array MAY have regained a slight edge over the Astute.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

Ah gotcha. There's a lot of debate as to which is the better sub. It's damn close. The Block III Virginia with the new array MAY have regained a slight edge over the Astute.

I would not be surprised.

Im guessing the US Navy adopted some of the features they liked into the new lot of Virginia subs. Im guessing the Royal Navy played nice and let you have all the test date after the match with the USS new Mexico .

a reply to: crazyewok

Actually they took tech from the Ohio's and the SSGN boats, and modified it for the Virginia boats.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

Actually they took tech from the Ohio's and the SSGN boats, and modified it for the Virginia boats.

Nice good job we are all on the same team

a reply to: Iwinder

A definite embarrassment.

Conversely, how many Russian and Chinese naval vessels have had U.S. subs married to their arses and didn't even now it.
Days, even weeks.

Besides it's good to get a dose of humble pie once in a while.

a reply to: mazzroth

Russia has lost 6 submarines without war. Do you really think they are capable of piloting those ships during a war?

Give me a break.

originally posted by: Stuship
a reply to: mazzroth

Russia has lost 6 submarines without war. Do you really think they are capable of piloting those ships during a war?

Give me a break.

Yeah someone should tell the Russians that the first rule of building a Navy is to design ships that DONT sink

Its sort of the whole core concept of not only Naval warfare doctrine but just sailing in general

a reply to: nwtrucker

Conversely, how many Russian and Chinese naval vessels have had U.S. subs married to their arses and didn't even now it.

That's something I think many people have not realized...how many subs do we have just playing tag with other subs and them not even know.

Submariners are some sneaky people for sure. Only in the water that is.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah someone should tell the Russians that the first rule of building a Navy is to design ships that DONT sink

Hard to win a war when your navy is fighting from the bottom of the ocean and they aren't subs.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: nwtrucker

Conversely, how many Russian and Chinese naval vessels have had U.S. subs married to their arses and didn't even now it.

That's something I think many people have not realized...how many subs do we have just playing tag with other subs and them not even know.

Submariners are some sneaky people for sure. Only in the water that is.

My yachting instructor was ex Royal navy Lt Commander on the UK subs of the 70/80's

Used to happen all the time back then with the Russians. They could pick em up and follow them for weeks and the Russians would not even know it. He said there problem was the rate the Russians were pumping out subs from the shipyards.

But he said the crews on those Russian subs were sloppy. Making mistakes any half trained sub crew should not be making.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah someone should tell the Russians that the first rule of building a Navy is to design ships that DONT sink

Hard to win a war when your navy is fighting from the bottom of the ocean and they aren't subs.

Thats one thing the Royal Navy has excelled at for the last 300 years and thats building converted "submarines" for Spain, France and Germany

a reply to: crazyewok

I knew a guy in LA boats when I was younger. He said they used to sneak up on Soviet boats no problem, then one day an Akula did it to them, and scared the crap out of everyone on the boat. That was right after Japan sold them the technology to build better screws for their boats.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

I knew a guy in LA boats when I was younger. He said they used to sneak up on Soviet boats no problem, then one day an Akula did it to them, and scared the crap out of everyone on the boat. That was right after Japan sold them the technology to build better screws for their boats.

Yeah Akulas were after my instructors time.

I guess it shows you cant get over cocky.

a reply to: mazzroth

Lets get real here... The American Navy is a fine Navy...
but none of us would last a week in WW3

/loling

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: crazyewok

I knew a guy in LA boats when I was younger. He said they used to sneak up on Soviet boats no problem, then one day an Akula did it to them, and scared the crap out of everyone on the boat. That was right after Japan sold them the technology to build better screws for their boats.

Ahh surprise buttsechs. The best kind eh? Those poor seamen.

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: mazzroth

Lets get real here... The American Navy is a fine Navy...
but none of us would last a week in WW3

/loling

Depends if it went Nuclear.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Iwinder

There is speculation that the navy LET the chinese close on purpose to score more funding. It worked and their funding was raised that year if i remember correctly. SO some sailors got sacrificed by navy brass. it was cheap for the funding.

That is the way to do it I guess, put major assets on the table and roll the dice. How clever and how stupid as the Chinese sub was reading sonar and prop signatures........Insane if what you propose might have been the reason for that occurrence.

As I said above in this thread they cannot replace Carriers during war time and if they lose one its gone baby and so are all the people and Fighter jets. And more than likely the escort ships too.

Regards, Iwinder

Zaphod58:

You realize that military equipment is shielded six ways from Sunday right? A single EMP is not going to take it out.

Actually, you can't fully shield from an EMP pulse, especially an E1 phase as it is very penetrating, so penetrating in fact that ships cannot protect against it, and of course, it all depends on the power and the proximity of the pulse.

I know I only mentioned a singular pulse, but in reality, there will be several detonations at various altitudes to cover an appropriate area as well as to allow for deep penetration, and of course, the other effects of a nuclear blast, heat and pressure waves. My point, however, was to highlight the real Achilles heel of US military, in fact, any modern military, and that is the over reliance on electronics.

If it ever came to an attack upon an American fleet by Russia, it would receive several nuclear air bursts followed rapidly by conventional but very powerful missile strikes upon the entire fleet. Obviously, from a distance outside the affected EMP area. It would be over in 10 minutes, and America will have lost many ships and thousands of military personnel.

Where nukes are concerned, it is quite irrelevant how good a military force is, as the destructive force of nuke makes all the equipment and training null and void very quickly.

Simply put, some countries ought never wage war against each other...that is my ultimate point.

call me old-fashioned, but i find it preposterous that the pinnacle of international comparitivism is
'my gun's bigger than your gun'.

grow up, humanity.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: nwtrucker

Conversely, how many Russian and Chinese naval vessels have had U.S. subs married to their arses and didn't even now it.

That's something I think many people have not realized...how many subs do we have just playing tag with other subs and them not even know.

Submariners are some sneaky people for sure. Only in the water that is.

My yachting instructor was ex Royal navy Lt Commander on the UK subs of the 70/80's

Used to happen all the time back then with the Russians. They could pick em up and follow them for weeks and the Russians would not even know it. He said there problem was the rate the Russians were pumping out subs from the shipyards.

But he said the crews on those Russian subs were sloppy. Making mistakes any half trained sub crew should not be making.

All is good in the UK eh?
www.cbc.ca...

Sailor died in Chicoutimi fire In their 13 years of Canadian service, the subs have spent less than three years at sea and have been plagued by dents, rust, fires and leaks. In 2004, HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire during its maiden voyage as a Canadian sub. Nine members of the crew suffered smoke inhalation. Lt. Chris Saunders, 32, died. HMCS Corner Brook ran aground in 2011 and is not expected back in service for at least two years. HMCS Windsor started a two-year refit in 2007 and is still not ready for service. It remains dry-docked in Halifax. When the Windsor does return to service, it may actually be less capable than before. CBC News obtained documents via access to information legislation that show the navy discovered rust in the sub. That would render it unable to dive as deep as it did before the multimillion-dollar refit. HMCS Victoria has been at sea for 115 days and is undergoing "work-ups" for an expected return to full operational service this year. None of the subs is capable of firing a Canadian torpedo.

A British MP says Canada got a bad deal on the second-hand submarines it bought from the U.K. in 1998 and should consider asking for a refund. Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, said it's time the British and Canadian governments explained how the deal went wrong. "Why were the Canadians daft enough to buy them?" he asked.

Regards, Iwinder