It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Submarines - do we need them ?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by vonspurter


Thanks for the point of view. Yes ,I realized that awhile back about certain ports of call. There was a Nationial Geographic Special about the underwater artifacts in the Harbor at Alexandria, Egypt. Divers went over the side with cameras to film the Anccient, Egyptian relics/monuments on the harbor floor. It did not take me long to realize what was floating about in the water all around the film crew. I realized quickly that they dumped everything right into he treatment. Wondered also how many of the crew got sick when they returned to the ship?

Lots of harbors out there like this around the world. Yet they keep trying to hammer us here in America about pollution. Amazing how much ignorance someone has invested in us here in America.

LOL LOL...Thanks for the sea story as well.

Stony J,

Thanks for the update. I should have realized by your handle as to what boat you were on. I worked on some of the olde boomers when they came in for overhaul and refueling. Long hard work on those ships. Packed alot of the hull stuffing boxes on the reach rods in the missle compartments...huge job for all those tubes. Also alot of hydraulic work on those boats.
Worked the Nathaniel Green for a long time. Was sorry to see her come back in after hitting an underwater mountain. They cut up the missle compartment in drydock 3...then dragged the front and back together and welded her up. This all had something to do with SALT treaty arrangements.. "trust but verify." She looked very odd after that. She was towed off somewhere and scrapped. A whole lot of work went into overhauling her. Sorry to see her meet such an end.

Thanks to all for their posts.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by orangetom1999]

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:38 PM
Yes, we need them because they fill a whole slew of tactical and strategic functions that ARE needed in todays uncertain world of international tensions, especially with the War on Terror. It gives both the US and other countries the ability to project power when and where needed and to meet whatever sudden crises or opportunities arise.

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:44 PM
Submarines. The one big, unknown.

Scares the $#!T out of potential enemies.

Worth their weight in gold.

Fear of the unknown.

posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 01:52 PM
I believe they are vital to our defense in certain situations. I wish we didnt need such tool of devastation but as it stands today, we do. I live near the Everett Naval Base and was fortunate enough to take a tour of the USS Ohio, I believe that was the name. I was very impressed and its an older class Sub I believe.

With the new kinds of insurgent war, not really new, just swept under the rug after Nam, I dont see a great need to build more Subs, just maintain the ones we have.

I hope the Iraq war is over soon and we dont get bogged down in Afghanistan, which is almost certain to happen.

Peace, and save some money, your going to need it.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:39 AM
reply to post by tommyb98201

Submarines are actually capable of doing certain tasks of which satellite intelligence gathering cannot.

Also certain types of equipment or machines, when they breakdown after along aging period, become more expensive to maintain than to build a new one or a new type. This is true of tanks, airplanes, and other machines as well and not just submarines. By the keeping of careful records it has been determined that maintaining becomes cost prohibitive verses building a new type or a new one with updated capabilities.

What happens as a item like this that they spend more time tied up to the piers/dry docks or in the case of airplanes...more time on the ground or hangers than in the air. This is known information's accumulated over the years by experience.
With many aged ships and boats they have actually contracted for certain work and when they put the ships/boats in dry dock..upon disassembly discovered that their problems and structural failures are more extensive than that for which was originally contracted. Decisions are then made as to how much moneys to spend for repairs verses scrapping or decommissioning. A very very serious decision on a boat or ship with a nuclear reactor. Not as easy to decommission as a conventional ship/boat.

The USS Saratoga final overhaul is just such an example. This ship was brought in for overhaul and the problems encountered were far more extensive than were in the original contract. Cost overuns were very high. Most of this was kept out of the public eye.

The F 15 Eagle aircraft right up the road from me at Langley Air Force Base were spending more time on the ground and in hangers than in the air verses when they were first built. We know this about our daily vehicles as they age as well.

It was the same with the Navy's F 14 Tomcats before they were phased out. More time under repairs than flying. Submarines are no different.

One of the last of our diesel powered submarines became so dangerous in its old age. When an accident finally occurred on her I recall someone was killed. They quickly decommissioned her due to the extent of the damage.. She was long past due for being decommissioned.

I think this last diesel class boat was called the Bonefish. Some of the sailors on this thread can probably furnish more details than can I.
Here she is or a likeness of her on this thread.
Click on the USS Bonefish SS-582 link. Scoll down to the bottom of the page for the damage/fire paragraph back in 1988.

The USS John F Kennedy was the same before they took her out of service..just plain olde worn out. To much money needed to repair her satisfactorily verses decomissioning. They had the example of the USS Saratoga to measure the deccision to take her out of service.


[edit on 22-1-2009 by orangetom1999]

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 05:26 PM
The SSBN subs are the strategic deterrent par excellence.

The attack sub provides flexibility and initiative. US and Royal Navy subs have launched cruise missiles in anger. Argentina ’s navy sat in port during the Falkland’s war on account of the threat of RN submarines (demonstrated by the loss of the Belgrano) – during the same war the RN was undoubtedly cautious of Argentine subs and even bagged one (ARA Santa Fe).

Whether we argue the merits of the propulsion choice, i.e. nuclear vrs diesel-electric-AIP-solar-etc I think we have to agree they add a vital component to the battlefield where the sea is involved!


new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in