It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

News of secret Russian submarine leaked on the internet.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Heres the link, read under "naval personnel"
Soviet Navy

While history dictates that the Russian/Soviet Navy always had a strong and competent officer core typically there junior enlisted personell were conscripts. If that link doesnt satisfy you do a google on the subject you wont get any shortage of hits I can assure you.



Considering your statements, I have to ask, do you comprehend the difference between Soviet Union and Russia?

You must are aware that USSR broke up into independent countries, and that currently we are living in the 21sf century?


I fully comprehend the difference between the Soviet Union and Russia, but there naval history is enexplicably entwined, it hasnt even been 2 decades yet! We are talking here about the "HISTORY" of Soviet/Russian naval conscription not just the past decade.

mod edit: corrected bbcode

[edit on 16-9-2007 by UK Wizard]




posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tonka

Very well substantiated comment! Admirals pre-WW2 used a lot of the same arguments regarding battleships. Have a quick browse of this,
Review


Ahh but battleships and carriers are a class apart now aren't they?
You are just looking at a carrier like a big target that if sunk would render that navy useless or sverely maimed. Also you're looking at it from the owner's point of view as if it were a really big white elephant or a really big basket in which you've put all your strategic eggs in.

However the US (or any other carrier force) has not compromised other surface combatant variants(or submarine variants) in order to fund and build
carrier class vessels.

A carrier can do much more damage at greater ranges(esp inland) than a battlecruiser twice its size. I'm sure we all know the benefits of a mobile naval air wing; I trust that is something we do not need to go over.

A navy with loads of subs and surface combatants will only be able to project power say 50km.
A carrier can do much more.

Now if you weigh the risks losing an asset like a carrier, to the advantages of having one in the first place, then I think the answer is quite simple.




Im not writing off surface combatants in general, just carriers!

Look at the force structure (eg ship ratios) of the worlds navys over the past 50 years, you might get a shock. I know I did. Entire classes of cruise missile sub have been built specifically to drop carriers.
Gunboat Carriers


Yes.. becaues they are awesome assets, these carriers. If they are not dealt with early on in any conflict they will cause a lot of problems and eventually govern operations in spheres that span all three forces: Navy, Army, Air force.

What you can also take note of is the fact that:
the countries that have been building these anti-carrier class vessels have in the meanwhile developed their own carrier Ops or are in the process of doing so.
Everybody realises the importance of carrier class vessels and those who have got the strategic relevance + money are going for it for sure.



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Tonka you really need to get a hold on this quoting business on ATS!



posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Daedalus3, here’s a link to basic info on Russian carrier approach back from 1996 -


Nevertheless, the Russian Navy remains formally committed to aircraft carrier development on the American model. Indeed, the CinC of the Russian Navy has been quoted as viewing an American Nimitz-class CVN as "ideal", but impractical given today's economic realities. There is no shortage of carrier critics, either, and the hushed debate of the Soviet era has spilled over into today's Russian press. The spread of sophisticated antiship missiles has been widely claimed to make the aircraft carrier an expensive target, which would find itself at the bottom of the ocean at the outset of any serious conflict. The costs of an aircraft carrier also serve as a point of criticism; in an echo of claims made by critics in the United States, Russian critics have argued that one must not only pay for the carrier, but the accompanying task group to protect it. This may not be a wholly accurate claim to begin with; at the very least, it is less applicable to Russian designs than to American ones, since Russian carriers are equipped with a complete SSM/SAM suite.



www.webcom.com...

Russian economic realities of today are drastically different, and Russians ARE actively working on the carrier concept for the 21st century.


May 30, 2007

Russia to Build New Aircraft Carrier
Russia will build a new aircraft carrier, Rosbalt reported. Its specification has been the highlight of recent meeting of high-ranked officers of Russia’s Navy and shipbuilding leaders, which was chaired by the RF Navy Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Masorin.


Severodvinsk is the most probable place, where new aircraft carriers will finally emerge. There, a dock is being constructed that would allow to build surface ships of over 100,000-ton displacement.


Ask your self, why keep submarine development fully funded regardless of 1991 economic crysis, while 85% completed Ulyanovsk was scrapped even when Ukranians proposed to exchage it for energy dept owed to Russia?


A source close to Chinese military affairs said on March 27 that China has been promoting the construction of a 93,000-ton atomic-powered carrier under a plan titled the "085 Project."


The dossier said the construction of the nuclear-powered carrier will be completed in 2020. China State Shipbuiling Corp’s Jiangnan shipyard located on Changxing Island near Shanghai, will be responsible for its design and construction. The size is similar to former Soviet’s unfinished atomic-powered carrier Ulyanovsk, the dossier states. China reportedly secretly purchased the design of Ulyanovsk from Russia. When the nuclear-powered carrier is finished, China will own an aircraft carrier which is on par with the U.S.’s newest of such vessels, the 97,000-ton atomic-powered USS Ronald Reagan, which recently docked at Busan Port to participate in a joint exercise between the South Korean and U.S. militaries.


www.hani.co.kr...

Chinese want to build what Russians left to Ukrainians to cut for scrap in 1991.

Here’s a an overview of Russian super carrier developments;


This is the layout of Project 1160 of 1972 showing three catapult tracks - two over
the bow and a third over the waist. The aircraft depicted are Su-27K's and Yak-44's.


mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk...

So here’s a question, why let 85% completed super carrier be cut for scrap even though it could have been saved by writing of Ukrainian dept which they had no way of repaying at the time any way?

What was the result of the long standing argument between carrier proponents and opponents?

What is apparent, is that that a compromise was reached, up to 3 carriers are to be built, but what we don’t officially know is the actual concept of the new carrier to be completed by 2012.

All we know is that it will be under 100,000 tons but more then 70,000 tons.

What is obvious is that the main focus of the carrier opponents was on the inherent weakness of the carrier to modern anti-ship missiles, not including the danger from satellites which can target the carrier directly from orbit.

Remember DU slug experiments?

A concept compromise was apparently reached, and that means Russians figured out a way of effectively protecting a carrier from current and future threats.


A more enhanced version, the Yak-41M was designated and it appears to be for Air Force service and not the Navy. The airframe of this aircraft has been extensively modified and given stealth features, a more powerful engine, more fuel and payload. The program is considered dead because Russia no longer has carriers that require VTOL aircraft. However in 1994 Jane's defense weekly reported that the Indian government was interested in a joint development contract with Yakovlev. (if you know any more about this please sent it to me through the discussion page)



homepage.idx.com.au...

It’s strange that we haven’t heard much about the stealth mod of the supersonic Yak.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus3
 



Daedalus3,

You have me all wrong, I wholeheartably believe in the need for carriers for they are the new tool in gunboat diplomacy, the deployment of one or two carriers in much the same way as battleships were utilized pre WW2 has proven on more than one occasion that it can stop a conflict before it starts or at the least minimize its impact, yes other contries such as Russia wish to to use this form of diplomacy themselves therefore there buiding two or three for the role. This guarantees them the availability of one carrier at all times.

What I dont believe in is there survivability in a real war. While yes your comments and arguments to substantiate there survivability are most valid and well explained but history proves again and again the folly of such systems. I believe in my humble opinion that in todays navy the carrier is an obsolete and vulnerable capital unit.

Again and again during exercises pre WW2 battleships got nailed by aircraft and again and again the Admirals screamed its not a real war they could never do that in a real war!!! They could never sink a capital unit at sea with full manouverability and there anti aircraft systems would blow any plane out of the sky that got close enough, our modern systems have defeated this threat!!!!

Fast forward 70 years.

Again and again during exercises aircraft carriers are getting nailed by submarines and again and again everyone screams its not a real war they could never do that in a real war. They could never do that to a carrier battle group our modern systems have defeated this threat!!!

Just an opinion but something to think about.


Oh and my quoting I know I cant work out how to seperate things, never done forums before, some help would be appreciated!

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Tonka]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Iskander,

Exactly what I am trying to say.. Everybody who wants to be a somebody has jumped onto the carrier bandwagon.

However, Russia and esp China, would need to follow an extremely steep learning curve in carrier ops in order to get the efficiency in operating carriers that other nations like the US, France, UK, Spain etc..( and I daresay India have).

Russia is already on the path to carrier enlightenment as the Kuznetsov is their operational training vessel so to say.

Also they have got immense knowledge of carrier ops from their Indian naval comrades with whom they have developed a completely new concept of non-western carrier ops. This includes STOBAR amongst other
things.
The design and development of the MiG-29K and the refit of the Admiral Gorshkov must have been valuable exercises as well.
Of course the Su-33K is an inherently 'better' naval a/c than the MiG-29K due to obvious size reasons; nonetheless, designing and building of Indian carrier orders must have helped the Russians.

There are a couple of really good videos on youtube that are on the Su-33K program and the training regime around it. Unfortunately they're all in Russian!


The Chinese on the other hand have a really long way to go firstly because of the steep learning curve and secondly because of the fact that all of PACCOM and PACRIM nations are obvious opponents.
However I'm sure they'll think of something..

Tonka,

Carriers do have a significant role to play in battles as well.
Disregard battles in which the carrier forces were massively superior(read post WWII deployment of USN carriers in battles) because I do agree with you in the sense that those are not accurate assessments.
However do take a note of how vital carriers were in acheiving naval superiority in the comparatively even-sided conflicts like the Falklands War in 82 and the 2 Indo Pak wars of 1965 and 1971.
At this time there were sufficient and possibly fatal threats from the non-carrier navies in the form of AShCMs and subs. However the carriers prevailed and played an important, sometimes pivotal(esp Falklands) role in winning the naval war.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by Zanzibar
Is it me or is Russia like the little kid in a playground who smells funny and eats bugs,


Not sure about the bugs, but I would not past Russia to have leaked the news itself.

Russian naval engineers do weird stuff all the time. The Kirov if I recall had a reactor AND a full steam powered propulsion set.

Im not sure what the big deal is. The NR-1 is small and has a reactor. So putting on in a diesel sized sub is no big deal. Not sure why you would want both in the sub. US subs at slow speeds use natural convection and are pretty quiet. D/E subs on batteries may be a bit more quiet but is it enough of an advantage to go through all this trouble?


Ditto, the Russians have always spit out highly experimental boats. not always a good thing. they put many sailors on "eternal patrol" for that. many boats never came back...

the known philosophy was bigger, deeper, faster. they are known for running dual reactors on some boats. A screw and reduction gear set up of a diesel size boat [size wise] might not support the speed a reactor would put on it. assuming not just using it as a charge mechanism. even just to switch over simply to flank would rip the screw off[in my understanding] then there is also that you would have to run the pumps for the reactor. which defeats the point of a diesel running off the battery. you cant just pull rods and shut down when not charging.. due to the fact that you couldn't start the reactor off the dead battery..which that size battery wouldn't support anyhow.. natural circulation ..[is that lawful to mention nowadays?]however since its already mentioned ..is not full time supportable. you still need pumps.

All that glob i just mentioned is why i am skeptical of the data about the new boat..



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Tonka,

Carriers do have a significant role to play in battles as well.
Disregard battles in which the carrier forces were massively superior(read post WWII deployment of USN carriers in battles) because I do agree with you in the sense that those are not accurate assessments.
However do take a note of how vital carriers were in acheiving naval superiority in the comparatively even-sided conflicts like the Falklands War in 82 and the 2 Indo Pak wars of 1965 and 1971.
At this time there were sufficient and possibly fatal threats from the non-carrier navies in the form of AShCMs and subs. However the carriers prevailed and played an important, sometimes pivotal(esp Falklands) role in winning the naval war.



Fair assesment but you fail to mention the pivotal role Britains submarine force played in stopping the Argentinian fleet including there carrier from deploying. Without there carrier the Argentinians were forced to operate from land at the extreme range of there aircrafts capabilitys. Also the planes and armament were generations apart and there level of training didnt even come close to the Brits. The only modern system the Argentinians had were the Super Entards equipped with excocet wich again was at the limit of its range and they had to utilize c-130's to give themselves an ad-hoc refueling capability. But this is straying off topic, the SSN Conquerer sinking the General Belgrano was a message to the Argentinians, you send your naval forces and you will lose them! The British deploying 3 SSN's (Spartan, Splendid and Conquerer) completely neutralized the Argentinian fleet and allowed the carriers to support the troops. The Argentinian Navy played absolutely no effective role in the conflict due to 3 Nuclear submarines.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Let’s cut to the chaise on the carrier debate;

“Is the Super Carrier Going to be Obsolete?”

Another proposed alternative to the aircraft carrier, the MFSD, or the arsenal ship, was once dubbed the 'Battleship of the 21st Century'.19�Manned by a small crew of 50, equipped with 750� vertical missile launch tubes, the arsenal ship was designed as a low budget, stealthy forward-deployable system, capable of delivering massive amounts of precision-guided ordnance to distant land targets.20�In such aspects, the arsenal ship is seen as a much more cost-effective weapons system platform vis-a-vis carriers, not only in terms of its small manning crew21�, but also discounting the need for carrier-based aviation to deliver an equivalent high-explosive (HE) payload.

Although the arsenal ship packs an awesome offensive power, its utility is constrained to certain narrowly defined missions. Unlike carrier air wings, these ships cannot perform the full panoply of prospective missions that the US Navy might have to undertake.22�For instance, the role of cruise missiles can be inappropriate in certain situations, such as the enforcement of no-fly zones, a task which thus could not be undertaken by arsenal ships. Nor can the latter conduct aerial interception or escort missions or operations such as the one that forced down the Achille Lauro hijackers in 1985.23�Operation Deny Flight saw the extensive support of carrier-based aircraft to reinforce 'a ban on military flights in the airspace of Bosnia-Hezergovina'.24�

The arsenal ship is no less vulnerable than the aircraft carrier. Its defensive capability relies entirely on its stealth characteristics; it has minimal self-defence against missile threats and has no sonar system to detect submarines.25�Furthermore, in the event� the arsenal ship is hit by a missile strike, it is doubtful whether its crew of 50 will be� able to control the extent of damage on board. With the highly concentrated ordnance on board the arsenal ship, the risk of an accidental fire turning into an inferno may be beyond the ability of a small crew to control. Furthermore, a simple malfunction in the elaborate, highly-automated control system on board the arsenal ship would render useless the majority of the strike missiles lying idle beneath deck, turning the ship into a sitting duck. Thus, not only does the arsenal ship have the offensive firepower to deliver a knockout blow, ironically it is also easily knocked out of action.

The cost-effectiveness of the arsenal ship as a means of delivering high-explosive (HE) payload is dubious.26�The arsenal ship per se, because of the lack of any active defensive capability, would have to be escorted - and the costs of these escorts also have not been considered in the $500 million-budget for the arsenal ship.27�In addition, the targeted cost for the arsenal ship excludes the cost of the missiles. Adding the cost of 750 missiles, a fully loaded arsenal ship's price tag may skyrocket to a hefty $2 billion dollars. Therefore, the assertion that the arsenal ship would offer a 'bigger bang for a buck' can be easily refuted.


www.mindef.gov.sg...



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tonka

Fair assesment but you fail to mention the pivotal role Britains submarine force played in stopping the Argentinian fleet including there carrier from deploying. Without there carrier the Argentinians were forced to operate from land at the extreme range of there aircrafts capabilitys. Also the planes and armament were generations apart and there level of training didnt even come close to the Brits.


True..however it is my opinion(and I believe that of many analysts around the world over the last few decades) that the Argentinians did not effectively use ASW techniqueswith the Vincenti de Mayo carrier and the Belegrano to:

1) Evade SSNs by operating in littoral waters, and conduct carrier ops from there; still giving the A-4Qs and Sup-Etenards a decent shot at the British Fleet, esp the HMS Invincible.

2)Use the S-2E(T?) Trackers as potent ASW platforms to guard the Argentianian fleet from sub attack.

3)Using (1) and (2), develop a 'clean' water/air window from Tierra Del Fuego to the Falkands and thus continuously bolster the Argentianian forces in Falkland.
Tracking SSNs in littoral waters is as you must be aware, not that difficult.

Moreover, the Argentinians did not use the FAA and CANA to the best of their abilities. These forces could have done much more damage to the RN, infact to the extent of swinging the war; esp if they had concentrated on sinking the Invincible(rumors are that they came close to it.)
And the subs couldn't have done squat about the FAA and esp CANA, launched from the Mayo in littoral waters..

Also the Argentinians didn't use asymmetric techniques to bypass embargoes on further procurement of exocets(they had only 5). These techniques included purchasing the required assets from indirect sources like Peru and Venezuela who had overtly pledged their assistance to the Argentinians. 10-15 more exocets could have again..swung the war.

Finally it is not a commonly accepted fact that the Vincenti De Mayo did indeed go back to port because of SSN paranoia.
Insufficient wind to launch fully combat loaded A-4Qs, and mechanical glitches(something that plagued this vessel right till her decommissioning)
are purported as possible reasons as well.
The Argentinian perspective on this is not known.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


Read the link, rather interesting. Could this "fire ship" idea possibly morphed into what where seeing now with the USS Ohio and a few of her sisters?? Obviously a much more relevant platform from a stealth point of view.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

True..however it is my opinion(and I believe that of many analysts around the world over the last few decades) that the Argentinians did not effectively use ASW techniqueswith the Vincenti de Mayo carrier and the Belegrano to:

1) Evade SSNs by operating in littoral waters, and conduct carrier ops from there; still giving the A-4Qs and Sup-Etenards a decent shot at the British Fleet, esp the HMS Invincible.

Moreover, the Argentinians did not use the FAA and CANA to the best of their abilities. These forces could have done much more damage to the RN, infact to the extent of swinging the war; esp if they had concentrated on sinking the Invincible(rumors are that they came close to it.)
And the subs couldn't have done squat about the FAA and esp CANA, launched from the Mayo in littoral waters..

Finally it is not a commonly accepted fact that the Vincenti De Mayo did indeed go back to port because of SSN paranoia.
Insufficient wind to launch fully combat loaded A-4Qs, and mechanical glitches(something that plagued this vessel right till her decommissioning)
are purported as possible reasons as well.
The Argentinian perspective on this is not known.


I Think you underestimate the capabilitys of British SSN's in Littoral waters.
On the 23 April Roger Lane-Nott Commander of HMS Splendid located the 25 de Mayo south of her Puerto Belgrano base just off the Argentinian coast, he signalled permission to sink her but was denyed by none other than Margaret Thatcher herself who did not believe it to be politically acceptable to sink her within Argentinian territorial waters.
Yes the 25 de Mayo had been planning a dawn attack on Invincible and Hermes but due too inadequate wind she could not launch, ironically she returned to port on orders less than 24 hours after the General Belgrano had been torpedoed and sunk by Chris Wreford Brown in Conquerer. She played no further part in the war.


The 25 de Mayo was actually the intended target to be sunk but due to communication issues from Northwood and the fact it was not known if Splendid or Spartan had contact with the carrier the order was given for Conquerer to attack the General Belgrano.

Source: We Come Unseen, The Untold Story of Britains Cold War Submarines. Author, Jim Ring

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Tonka]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tonka
reply to post by iskander
 


Read the link, rather interesting. Could this "fire ship" idea possibly morphed into what where seeing now with the USS Ohio and a few of her sisters?? Obviously a much more relevant platform from a stealth point of view.


As to the Ohio I was on the Last crew as an ssbn and was there for the first half of the ssgn conversion. all they did was pull out the ballistic missles and insert "packages" of tomahawks. just under 160 total in the design when i left. they added navy seal deployment equip. fuddled with the reduction gears ect. they also did a nuclear refueling as we where on the equivalent of "running on fumes" after 20 years of service. They don't have anything our other subs don't already have. sorry to disappoint... unless that constitutes their "fire ship".

also for some of the other stuff on the thread.. the last trip we did took us from the east coast around the Magellan straights to sub base in Washington. thats right we drive the long way(don't get to use the canal anymore] that took us about 40+ days which the admiral said was a submerged world record at the time. didn't see a magic under continental short cut..but I've been wrong before.. just for giggles



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Tonka
 


Oh.. I was unaware that the HMS Splendid had a firing solution on the Mayo whilst in littoral waters. I don't have that book you referred to..
Any chance of getting exact c-ods on the HMS Splendid and the Mayo at the time?
Also any chance of finding an online source for the same?

EDIT: IIRC the HMS Spartan was designated with dealing with the Mayo and she never found the Mayo.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER

also for some of the other stuff on the thread.. the last trip we did took us from the east coast around the Magellan straights to sub base in Washington. thats right we drive the long way(don't get to use the canal anymore] that took us about 40+ days which the admiral said was a submerged world record at the time. didn't see a magic under continental short cut..but I've been wrong before.. just for giggles


Not to burst your bubble Dirtmaster but


The USS SEAWOLF join the Electric Boat built USS NAUTILUS and SKATE in writing new chapters in the achievements of man when the nuclear powered submarine came to the surface at 11:45 a.m. on October 6, 1958 after being continuously submerged for 60 days.


and also


USS TRITON, the only American made twin reactor ship ever built, on May 10, 1960, completed the first totally submerged non-trivial circumnavigation of the world when she followed the route of Ferdinand Magellan for 36,000 miles during 84 days beneath the surface.


Source

These are just the two I found these have probably been beaten also.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
reply to post by Tonka
 


Oh.. I was unaware that the HMS Splendid had a firing solution on the Mayo whilst in littoral waters. I don't have that book you referred to..
Any chance of getting exact c-ods on the HMS Splendid and the Mayo at the time?
Also any chance of finding an online source for the same?

EDIT: IIRC the HMS Spartan was designated with dealing with the Mayo and she never found the Mayo.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Daedalus3]


Spent the last 2 hours looking for an internet link and cant find one!
As I said the book is called,
We Come Unseen, The Untold Story of Britains Cold War Submariners.
Author: Jim Ring Link to Book
The information regarding the tracking of 25 de Mayo was garnered from an interview of Lane_Nott himself, Im sorry I cant give you a substantiated link but the book is cheap and well worth the read!!!

quote from page 190
"On 23 April, Roger Lane-Nott had found the carrier some way south of her Puerto Belgrano base, a few miles off the Argentinian coast. She was well outside the MEZ, and Lane-Nott was therefore debarred from attacking her. Vividly aware of her capabilities, however, he immediately signalled for the Rules of Engagement to be relaxed. On the advice of the Attorney-General Michael Havers, Mrs Thatcher was obliged to refuse on the grounds that the carrier was only just outside Argentinian territorial waters. 'It was an extremely frustrating moment,' commented Lane-Nott.'I really thought I had her.'"

Sorry I cant substantiate it any more but as I said the books cheap and definitely worth a read!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:41 AM
link   

It also developed a third type of nuclear-powered submarine (called SSGNs) designed specifically to launch cruise missiles against American aircraft carrier task forces. At its peak in 1980, the Soviet submarine force numbered 480 boats, including 71 fast attacks and 94 cruise and ballistic missile submarines. Because the names of individual Soviet submarines are seldom known abroad, the usual practice is to refer to them only as a member of a submarine class. The most widely known class names are those assigned as code names by NATO, such as Alfa, Charlie, and Kilo

americanhistory.si.edu...


So we know how the USSR were going to try shut down the Atlantic triaffic.



“Our ASW capabilities can best be described as poor or weak…” – Vice Admiral John Grossenbacher, US Navy, 2002



"ASW officers and enlisted men are more often treated like the Rodney Dangerfields of the air wing. They get no respect…” – George C. Wilson, onboard the USS John F. Kennedy




t is also well known that the cantankerous Late Admiral Hyman Rickover, US Navy (Retired) did not think much of his own carrier-centered navy. When asked in 1982 about how long the American carriers would survive in an actual war, he curtly constated that they would be finished in approximately 48 hours. Former President Jimmy Carter, a former US Navy officer, and Annapolis graduate, was also none too keen on the big carrier Navy, either. Vistica mentioned that Carter did not want any more new carriers, and for the existing fleet to be cut dramatically.



he atypically unreticent and plainspoken submarine commander, Captain John Byron, US Navy (Retired) also intimated in the early 1980s that American nuclear submarines had little difficulty operating against carriers. “Operating against a carrier is too easy,” he quipped. “The carrier’s ASW protection often resembles Swiss cheese.” In a 1985 exercise in the Pacific, this was confirmed when one US nuclear submarine sank two aircraft carriers and eight other ships, and as per standard operating procedure, these painful results "were never publicly disclosed."



The most damning comment ever made by a senior officer was that of the Late CNO, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, US Navy, who in 1971 confessed that with the advent of long-range Soviet anti-ship missiles, if there had been a US-Soviet conventional naval war, the US Navy “would lose.”

www.g2mil.com...


www.transasianaxis.com...

The article got moved to the members section but the second page still carries it. I found the article to be most insightful and i suggest everyone engaged here should see how far they can read before becoming quite sick to their stomachs...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Seeing you quote a comment from Rickover reminds me of a comment he made in the 80's where I read it and the exact wording escapes me now but from memory it was at a congressional hearing and he stated at the time he would much rather be in the Soviet navy because he didnt like to lose!!



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tonka

Originally posted by DIRTMASTER

also for some of the other stuff on the thread.. the last trip we did took us from the east coast around the Magellan straights to sub base in Washington. thats right we drive the long way(don't get to use the canal anymore] that took us about 40+ days which the admiral said was a submerged world record at the time. didn't see a magic under continental short cut..but I've been wrong before.. just for giggles


Not to burst your bubble Dirtmaster but


The USS SEAWOLF join the Electric Boat built USS NAUTILUS and SKATE in writing new chapters in the achievements of man when the nuclear powered submarine came to the surface at 11:45 a.m. on October 6, 1958 after being continuously submerged for 60 days.


and also


USS TRITON, the only American made twin reactor ship ever built, on May 10, 1960, completed the first totally submerged non-trivial circumnavigation of the world when she followed the route of Ferdinand Magellan for 36,000 miles during 84 days beneath the surface.


Source

These are just the two I found these have probably been beaten also.



A careful read you actually prove me right. I never said we had the longest submergence.. it was that transit submerged which was half the time of the triton. which also had to go the long way..And there have been multiple boats called seawolf. most modern boats will beat the 60 day submerged mark on an average patrol.. but i do appreciate anyone who studies subs..

I know where my boat went..it was the 65th and final deterrent patrol as an ssbn

[edit on 17-9-2007 by DIRTMASTER]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Tonka,

This link's for you.. From the recently conducted Malabar 07 Naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal:

I think it will be 'music to your ears'..


www.indianexpress.com...

EDIT: I think the Aussies were in this one two..
with the Japanese and the Singapore navy..

I think Malabar 07 deserves and independant thread..
Will look into it..
If someone wants to take the initiative please go ahead!


[edit on 18-9-2007 by Daedalus3]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join