News of secret Russian submarine leaked on the internet.

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Daedalus3,

I sure that before and wondered how some IAF Jaguar's got pass the supposed "invincible" USN airdefences. Do you have any information on the tactics they employed?




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tonka
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!!


Not that i think Rickover did much to improve the navy , or the people serving in it, but i also remember him saying that he would much rather fight with the Soviet navy than with his own...

This is not a 'source' i would normally post but i have lost the other reference to the reference for this quote:


At that time, we were not ready for war. Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, former Navy Chief of Operations, said at the Australian Naval Institute Seminar in February, 1979: “It is the professional judgment of senior officials in the United States that our Navy has only a 35% probability of winning a conventional naval war against the Soviet Union. Our military knows this, and so does theirs. About the only people who do not know it are the general public in the United States and Australia. Nor do they know that a nuclear exchange in 1981 on present trends would result in about 160 million dead in the United States.”

www.the7thfire.com...


I have checked a significant majority of the claims on that page, and their scarily accurate, but i wont vouch for it's general integrity so lets stick to this specific quote.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Although I do agree he did some funny things and a lot of good officers lost there careers due to what might seem the pure whimsy of Hyman Rickover, you cant doubt his success in the area of nuclear power and its associated safety record. From what I've read it seems that in the end it was the shipyards and private contractors that had him ousted, when you look at it, it seemed he was the only one keeping the bastards honest so to speak. Here is a link to speech he gave some columbia university students in 1982 on leadership. Love or hate the guy its pretty inspirational stuff, makes you wish you could sit down and pick the blokes brain for an hour or two!

Rickover Speach

Take the time to read it, if you really hate this bloke it might give you some insight into the man behind the mask so to speak.

Enjoy.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by Tonka]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Tonka
 


Hate is a personal thing and since i don't know him... All Rickover in my opinion achieved was expanding on what was already there and since what was already there were in my opinion not what was required to win, well you know how i feel.
The US naval service expanded at a time when the USSR had already achieved the type of strategic dominance that a hundred extra US submarines could simply not undo. Some have also suggested that his focus on creating a 'safe' navy resulted in men being selected to keep machines running smoothly instead of focusing their attention on becoming adept at fighting their ships.

EDIT: Will try to get to the speech but both Clinton and Hitler, like most other lia rs before them, had some pretty 'inspiring speeches.


EDIT: Turns out neither Clinton or Hitler said anything quite so lucid..... Not sure if i would like to work for him but i think i would like him working for me!

Stellar

[edit on 18-9-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Daedalus3,

I sure that before and wondered how some IAF Jaguar's got pass the supposed "invincible" USN airdefences. Do you have any information on the tactics they employed?


Your guess is as good as mine..
will do some local research on this..

My guess is they flew low, flew straight, popped up for radar lock on the target and the executed a simulated Sea Eagle launch at ~100km..

I think these carrier kills have to be taken with a pinch of salt though..



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Your guess is as good as mine..
will do some local research on this..

My guess is they flew low, flew straight, popped up for radar lock on the target and the executed a simulated Sea Eagle launch at ~100km..

I think these carrier kills have to be taken with a pinch of salt though..


Agree with you Daedalus3, it should be taken with a pinch of salt unless it was a sub, then its a foregone conclusion!!!



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tonka
Agree with you Daedalus3, it should be taken with a pinch of salt unless it was a sub, then its a foregone conclusion!!!


Oh there were some wicked subs in the exercise alright..
USN LA class SSN Chicago for instance..

No IN Kilo class subs though..

I will try and start a decent thread on Malabar 07 thie weekend. Lots to be learnt here. I believe the HMAS Adelaide took part as well..

EDIT: Quoting woes!



[edit on 19-9-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

I believe the HMAS Adelaide took part as well..



That would have been a non-event.
Australia's surface force is about as menacing as a tugboat equipped with fireworks!


Lol, Our Anzac frigates ARE nothing more than redesigned tugboats!

The 2 Air Warfare destroyers where building are going to be equipped with a half assed version of Aegis all packed in to the smallest,cheapest hull it will possibly fit into!

Little bit like a hardware store over here called WA Salvage,
We not fancy but we cheap!!!



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I think you need to discuss the same with your country's seamen.
This lack of faith in surface vessels is unnerving!





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join