Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Bookmarked For Later Abuse

[Intel Source: The Sub Report] Found this article at OpinionEditorials.com about submarine warfare. I stopped counting the major mistakes at about six. I don't have time to give it the mocking and belittling treatment it so richly deserves right now, but I'll try to come back to it. In the meantime, you can read it yourself and see how many idiocies you can find!

...“The best way to sink a submarine is with another submarine.”
"This is the most common fable, often appearing in popular fiction such as the works of Tom Clancy. However during the First World War, when the undersea threat first became real, it was the destroyer which finally contained the menace. Destroyers were first developed at the turn of the last century to protect battleships from fast torpedo boats, and proved ideal against submersible torpedo craft. During the Second World War, the combination of long-range aircraft and destroyers defeated the more advanced U-boats of Hitler’s Navy.
"Though modern attack subs are armed with superior weapons and better tracking equipment, its principal foes remain aircraft and surface ships. The problem is submarines lack the long-range weapons with which it can sink another sub, depending instead on its torpedoes and the short-range anti-sub rocket. In contrast, surface vessels now regularly deploy aircraft of its own, in the form of helicopters which can range out 100 miles or more.
“A nuclear attack sub is far more capable than conventionally powered boats”
"In terms of speed, diving depth, and range, this is a true statement. Other than diving however, these are all abilities desirable in surface ships and not necessarily in a submarine. Primary tactics for undersea warfare has changed little since the world wars: “hide and seek” followed by “hit and run”. Constantly in naval maneuvers were hear in the media of slow and silent diesel powered vessels besting the large and noisy nuclear subs. This great asset of the modern attack sub, nuclear propulsion, may be its fatal flaw. The large size required to fit noisy turbines make it vulnerable to countermeasures. A conventional sub cruising on electric batteries is still the quietest warship at sea, making it also the deadliest."

Needless to say, he goes on to say we should build diesel subs. Have a start at ripping it apart in the comments, and I'll be back later to see how we're doing.

Update 2306 28 Sep: PigBoatSailor did a better job of ripping apart the article than I ever could, so I'll direct you to his post. The only thing that I might add is that the exercises the author hears about where diesels "beat" the nukes are pretty much designed to give the diesel several advantages that would not be present in a real world situation. (Specifically, NAUs .)

32 Comments:

Anonymous Bernie said...

Back in WW1 and WW2, it was not even possible for one submerged submarine to sink another submerged submarine. There is only one record of this occuring and it was a British sub that sank a German U- Boat while at P/D.
It was not until the 1950's and the concept of the "K" Boats that hunting submarines with submarines took on a serious tone. The K- Baots were equippped with special sonars and early homing torpedos.
The early SSN's were nothingf more than conventional fleet submarines optimized for trational anti surface work fitted with nuclear power plants. The 594 class and the 597 were the first SSN's to combine the specialized sonar and homing torpedos of the diesel powered K Boats with nuclear power.
The 594 also sacrifieced speed for quieting as well making them up to 10 knots slower than the earlier SSN-585 Skipjack class. So it was not until the 60's that it bacme apparent that the best way to kill submarines is with submarines. Prior to that, Destroyers and aircraft were the only way to hunt them. With the shift to Littoral warefare and low intensity conflicts, It would be very practical to build Diesel ar advanced AIP boats. Any Submarine named for a city or State is too large to get close enough to lock out SEALS. Add the concerns about Reactor safety over the mission and the cost of an SSN Capital ship, alternatives should be considered.

9/27/2005 6:24 PM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

Ok, I am primed to rip apart the article, but that will have to come later tonite. Until then...

Bernie-
In response to the comments about modern sub ops (the historical stuff not really having bearing to what the crux of the post), you state:

"With the shift to Littoral warefare ... It would be very practical to build Diesel ar advanced AIP boats"
While I tend to agree that Diesels and/or AIPs have their place, and I wish we hadn't eliminated all our conventional subs, I will take issue with the thought of using non-nukes in regional conflicts. How, exactly, are the supposed to 1) Get on station without being noticed? 2) Loiter on station and remain stealthy? Diesels are great in certain applications. Force projection far from a supporting port isn't one of them.

"Any Submarine named for a city or State is too large to get close enough to lock out SEALS."
You think so, eh? Have you served on a City-named boat with a DDS or ASDS? They are more than capable, as they have proven time and again.

"Add the concerns about Reactor safety over the mission and the cost of an SSN Capital ship"
Any boat, any sailor is a concern. However, the reactor is not some delicate babied system that prevents us from putting boats in harm's way. We do it now. SSNs have a role they can effectively play in the littorals, and they re-prove it constantly.

9/27/2005 6:50 PM

 
Blogger Zoe Brain said...

Having been in nothing but Donks...

Diesels have their place, and the USN should have some.

Nukes - require a huge amount of infrastructure to operate them. It's not the boats themselves that are so much more expensive, it's the shore facilities, the training establishments, the time it takes to institute a "corporate culture". It's a huge initial cost, in time and money, no matter how many or how few nukes you operate.

Otherwise, there's no doubt we in Oz would have gone for a nuke option. We need boats that can get on-station many thousands of km away fast, and with low indiscretion on the way. A large (3000t) Donk with relatively low indiscretion is a compromise, the best we could do under the circumstances, and not ideal.

Once you get on-station, a good Donk is more like a hole-in-the-ocean than a comparable SSN is. But stealth is its only option, it can't clear a "Flaming Datum" fast enough for comfort (OK, Mach 3 would be a good comfortable speed for me). Even clunky obsolete SSNs have the option of burning up a few extra neutrons when sonar conditions are poor, they can even go fast-and-noisy, zoom in, up periscope, take the shot, and zoom out before the enemy really knows WTF is happening.

A Donk that's playing "tag" with a stealthy SSN and is just refining its targetting solution is SOOL if the SSN (with only an intermittent contact) goes active with a zillion watts of spare power, opens bowcaps, lets loose with one over and one under the layer at knife-fighting range, and zooms away at "20+" knots with a damn great knuckle bollixing everything up.

That's just one trick. There's many more, and a good SSN skipper and crew can make life miserable for a Donk. That is, if the Donk doesn't get its solution first, and insert a couple of torps right up the SSN's baffles at spitting-distance before the SSN even knows there's a Donk in the area. That can be a very big "If" indeed, especially in littoral waters when the SSN isn't on home turf and the Donk is.

Donks are semi-mobile intelligent minefields. Get the enemy MLA right, and they're really dangerous. Get it wrong, and while an SSN has many options, Donks have few or none. And "Direct Support"? Forget it.

Helos and MPAs are also very difficult to evade with a Donk. MPAs using DICASS can make life very difficult indeed, and Lightweight airdropped torps that an SSN can usually evade by agility, the Donk has to evade by stealth. OK, from an operational analysis viewpoint, a soft kill or hard kill is still a kill, but it makes a very big difference to the crews!

AIP and other technologies have meant that really modern Donks have *some* options now, but there's still no substitute for a tea kettle at the back.

The fact that the US has no donks at all, for training and doctrine exploration, is, um, inexplicable to me. Maybe you guys can rely on Allies to fill the Red Team spots, but you still need to get SSN skippers with some time on Diesels so they know the limitations and advantages Donks have. You need an "Agressor Squadron" of old nukes and new diesels just to train against.

Though IMHO it's more important that Bubbleheads have some time with Skimmers, and Skimmers with an ASW specialty have a lot of time at depth, again to appreciate each other's weaknesses and strengths.

A well-co-ordinated and cunningly led set of targets - er - surface ships can make life very difficult indeed for any boat, no matter how well handled, under many environmental conditions. It they but knew it. Most don't, and sub skippers might tend to get a little complacent as the result. Meanwhile skimmers have no idea just how vulnerable they are - and perhaps that's just as well for their peace of mind.

Now I'll go and read the article.

9/27/2005 7:46 PM

 
Anonymous Bernie said...

Pig, if you have ever served on a boat at all, it has been a while.
Yes, they have DDS's but the size of an SSN means that it can't get in close enough. Since the PD of an EEN is classified, we can't discuss the details but the littoral option is nothing more than a desparate attempt to justify the building of more ORSE Inspection platforms. SSN's are reator plants first and a Skipper will write off a SEAL tean rather tan risk his reactor plant. I myself have served under skippers who have outrightly said "Taking this ship to war is a direct vioaltion of reactor safety regulations" 13 years. five boats and our only mission was to work up for the next ORSE.

9/27/2005 8:30 PM

 
Blogger Bubblehead said...

I'll let PBS defend himself, but having seen Bernie's resume in previous posts, I think several of us have been in boats much more recently than he has, so he doesn't know what SSNs are able to do now. (And no, we don't need to mention specific water depths here.) As far as all of his comments about "boats existing only to take the reactor to sea" I've heard COs and XOs say that too -- as a joke. Bernie apparently didn't understand that it was an ironic joke.

9/27/2005 8:47 PM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

Bernie-

You obviously don't do any research, although I remember your posts - long time since you have been on a boat. Myself, I am still a reservist. I just recently got off a boat. I am authorized to wear a GWOT Expeditionary Medal, which means, yes, I completed a mission in direct support of OIF/OEF. I have completed missions on two boats named after cities, and, oh, I still work for NAVSEA, so I am still involved in the design and operational side of the sub fleet. Any more questions about my experience? When was your last boat ride?

Yes PD is classified. However, as I said before, yet what you failed to absorb, was "SSNs have a role they can effectively play in the littorals." If you have doubts on whether or not the Navy believes this, try reading Forward ... From the Sea, the Navy's operational concepts for the present and future. However, if you are too lazy to research your opinions, you will have to take my word that, from experience, subs (yes, SSNs too) are a player in the littorals.

"SSN's are reator plants first and a Skipper will write off a SEAL tean rather tan[sic] risk his reactor plant."
Really? And in what operational guidance did you read this? I have seen reactor plants risked for much less.

"I myself have served under skippers who have outrightly said "Taking this ship to war is a direct vioaltion of reactor safety regulations" 13 years. five boats and our only mission was to work up for the next ORSE."
As Bubs said, you seem to be deficient in recognizing irony. You are so intent on blaming Naval Reactors for your poor experience, you have blinded yourself to truth.

Just out of curiousity, what rate were you?

9/27/2005 9:38 PM

 
Anonymous rebootinit said...

I can see the writer was slanted towards the diesels/AIP's, bla bla bla. But if you cannot deploy them in need, what is the use? Why deploy 20 AIP boats around the coast? They all have to come up for air, or did you forget that? When on air, they are spotted by satellite and posistioned, or did you forget that?
I see this push towards a country owning diesel/aip's as a laugh. It is a last chance scenario with a nuke going in hunting. That also depends on the length of operation of their weapons for a warshot, which are far shorter in duration.
Did you forget the AIP shipment to San Diego? Hell the crew rode airplanes and the submarine on a ship.
AIP has some help if they are close to home and are sitting, other than that, they can, and will be vulnerable to sonar...
As for the shallow water ops by DDS and 688's? Get qualified Dive and you will learn what a mission qualified dive goes through. Let's just say the water was shallow enuf to make me scared after 13 years of standing dive.
Get Qualified and then you can comment as a mission Dive. Then you will learn what 688's can do....

9/28/2005 5:11 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A submarine's greatest asset is that people believe stuff like this.

The Armadillo

9/28/2005 6:15 AM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

-Riddled with factual errors- would be too kind for this piece. Nevertheless, I went at it, and like Pringles, once I popped, I couldn't stop. Here is my breakdown of this silliness. Warning, it is long.

9/28/2005 10:14 AM

 
Blogger Chap said...

the littoral option is nothing more than a desparate attempt to justify the building of more ORSE Inspection platforms.

Bernie is, to not put too fine a point on it, full of crap. I have stood OOD off the coast in a former boomer in some very tight places, inserting SEALs via SDVs and CRRCs using the DDS in a place close enough for me to swim to and shallow enough to bonk with a tiny bit more angle on the boat. We were doing that in 1983, we did it in Vietnam, we did it in the Korean War, we do it with SSNs, we'll do it with SSGN.

Bernie's not been on patrol in (mumble), hasn't seen DDS ops, doesn't know the combat radius of the delivery systems.

Ahem. Sorry, just had to get that out of my system.

Back to the other piece of silliness. This guy writes for Sea Power? Guess I ain't ever buying THAT magazine...

9/28/2005 10:59 PM

 
Blogger Chap said...

Okay, Bernie got me on the governor. You ever sit for hours stationkeeping at PD next to a big freaking rock? How many hundred yards? Oh, sorry, how many yards? How many merchants and fishing boats were you dodging at the time? Was "emergency deep" lowering all masts and antennas? Did you do this for an exercise?

You ever go through (mumble) submerged, in an ex-Polaris boat?

"Too large to get close enough to lock out SEALs", my foot. Give the dive team just this much under the keel (indicates a very small amount with his hands) and we'll get in there.

9/28/2005 11:05 PM

 
Blogger Bubblehead said...

What's really fun is when all the fishing boats head out for sea at sunset on Friday night off the coasts of countries with a dominant religion that celebrate a Friday sabbath...

9/29/2005 1:05 AM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

Bubs-

Thanks for adding the note about the diesel/SSN excercise. There were actually other non-realistic advantages, too, but I am pretty sure I am not allowed to bring them up.

9/29/2005 4:35 AM

 
Blogger Bubblehead said...

I know what you're saying. I googled a lot and found only that one open source use of that term I used.

9/29/2005 5:17 AM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

So any response Bernie? Bernie..? Hello.....?


Didn't think so.

9/29/2005 10:36 PM

 
Anonymous Bernie said...

GWOT Expeditonary Mexdal = Drill and field daying in a war zone. SSN's are a waste of taxpayers money. Close the checkbook and shut em down.
You cannot enter any harbor submergred in a 6000 ton ORSE inspection platform. In order to do that, you would need something as small as the Type 209, anything larger and you would be dragging the keel in the mud with the sail broached. ven so, a sub Skipper would write off an entire SEAl team rather than risk the safety of his reactor planr. All this Litoral stuff is nothiong more than pork barrel justification to keep building Underwater reactor plants for the sake of reactor plants.
By the way, My reserve unit was a home for disillusioned Submariners so from what my dive buddies told me, things are a little better (5 section duty instead of 3 section, no more :Room watches and topside sentry watches, no more NTPI's) But thier reasons for leaving were the same as mine. The only mission was ORSE workup.

10/01/2005 5:57 PM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

GWOT Expeditonary Mexdal [sic] = Drill and field daying in a war zone.

Try ISR and shooting Tomahawks. If all I did was field day I would have simply gotten the GWOT service medal. Didn't even read the link. Sheesh. Strike one.

You cannot enter any harbor submergred in a 6000 ton ORSE inspection platform. In order to do that, you would need something as small as the Type 209, anything larger and you would be dragging the keel in the mud with the sail broached

Actually, not true. Plenty of harbors have deep enough waters. Ask Chap. Or me. Again, your ignorance overwhelms. Strike two.

ven [sic] so, a sub Skipper would write off an entire SEAl team rather than risk the safety of his reactor planr[sic].

Wrong again. Subs deploy SEALs fairly regularly. Not once have we written one off. Strike three.

So, again you prove yourself ignorant and misinformed. And you still didn't answer my question. What rate were you?

10/01/2005 10:00 PM

 
Anonymous Bernie said...

Having worked for Lockheed after leaving the Navy, I was involved in some work on the SDV's. The # 1 problem with the SDV and the ASDS is that the mother sub is unable to get close enough to shore in order to provide for a transit within the SDV's and even ASDS's battery cpacity. In addition to Battery capacity, Hypothermia has become a problem with the SDV's.
Ever since the mid 80's, there have been proposals to backfit the SDV's with some sort of AIP system.
The ASDS was supposed to have an AIP system as well but naval Reactors still has pull over underwater propulsion technology.
Having done underwater sweeps of a lot of littoral waters all over the world as an EOD Diver in the reserves, I can tell you that a 6000 ton Orse workup platform will have to stay prety far off shore in most places in order to avoid dragging it's keel in the mud while broaching its sail.
The Congressional limit of 30 SSN's and 15 SSBN's / SSGN's sounds about right.

10/01/2005 10:06 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back in the 70's, Rickover convinced Congress that we absolutly had to build 100 "688 super subs" or we would all end up speaking Russian. We built almost 70 of them before the Soviets went under. Now, 688's are considered so obsolete that they want to retire them early while building 2 billion dollar plush Virginia class boats. Until the last 688 is about to reach the end of it's 30 year service life, there should be no new SSN's built. Refit the 688's, modify them, backfit new technology as necessary. With only 30 boats, we can remove half the 688's from service and refit them while the other half minds the store and finishes thier 30 year life span. When these boats are retired, the refitted other half can take over for another 20 years.
Defense needs to guard onother flank that we have not been guarding, our economic flank.
A wonder weapon that breaks the bank is a weapon that loses the war on th economic front.

10/01/2005 10:14 PM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

Bernie-

On the east coast, where the Navy tests most of its equipment, with its long, slow drop to ocean depth, your comment might hold some weight. However, most ports of interest have a rather precipitous drop to depth. SSNs have the ability to get quite close where it matters.
Even with that in mind, there have been other advances that mitigate the ASDS issue - mainly the upgrades to their batteries.

What ports are you referring to? again, you deal in generalities and speculation.

Oh, and again, factual information wrong. There is no Congressional limit. One DoN study said 35 boats, one DoD study said no fewer than 55 attack boats. Check you facts before you pout off.

And you still have not answered my question. You just keep repeating the same thing, over and over, like some kind of anti-Rickover mantra.

Anon-

It would seem Rickover wasn't too far off, eh? The Russians tried to keep up, and their economy collapsed.

"2 Bilion dollar plush ... boats"? Have you been in one of those things? Hardly plush.

As for 688's being obsolete - hardly. They are upgraded constantly. The reaason the VA class is being built is the same reason your 688 recycling idea can not work - the 30 hull life cutoff is here. The LA was commissioned in '76. But we can't wait until the last '88 hits that 30 year mark - the Cheyenne didn't get commissioned until 20 years after the LA. Your "plan" would leave us with no boats able to go to sea.

Oh, and it isn't the DoD's job to defend the economy. It is to defend the country with the money congress gives it, which, frankly, has never been enough. Too much of the world expects us to maintain a strong force, and yet despises us for it.

10/01/2005 11:52 PM

 
Anonymous Bernie said...

The DOD is just another self serving governemnt institution that will never have enough money to buy all of the wonder weapns it wants. A corrupt self serving military industrial complex can destroy the nation by bankrupting us just as effectivly as any enemy invasion. True, there is no set limit on how many SSN's at this time but the numbers being debated range anywhere between 30 - 55 boats. Of course, the self serving institution is claimin that even the hight limit is too low. The CNO actually went so far as to tell congress "Limiting ship acquisition to only what you can afford is irresposible. I myself stand for the lower limit. About 12- 15 SSN's on each coast + Snaller AIP boats thast can be produced in greater numbers would give more bang for the buck.
Unless you were actually an FT or MMW, you were only drilling and field daying over there. Being that the enemy does not have the ability to sink ships, subs were only launching Tomahawks in a "Let us play too" context. In this so called conflict, a barge towed by a tugboat could have launced cruise missiles. We don't need 2 billion dollar ORSE inspection platforms to launch Tomahawks against an enemy that caouldn't even shoot back against even an auxiliary ship much less a surface combattant. We should re fit half the 688's, no new hulls should be built until the last 688 has reached the end of it;s service life. By the way, I earned 8 Expeditionary medals, all of them went into the trash as soon as I was given them. Drilling and Field daying off the coast of Russia with the CO only converned about the next ORSE was not my idea of "Expeditionary".

10/02/2005 12:01 PM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My Reserve unit is a home for disillusioned submariners. Our #1 source of divers are ships divers off the boats. My OIC was himself a disgruntled submariner. There were so many ex submariners in our unit that COMSUBROM-11 came over to our unit and tried to force all of us who had submarine NEC's to drill on board the McKee. All of us, down the the last man threatened to resign if he carried through with his threat. So, with so many disillussioned subariners in our unit, we get to kep up on the latest news. Additionally, while working with the SEALS on harbor defense exercises, we get to hear things from thier side. Most "Frogs" don't like to stay on the DDS boats any longer than they have to becuse of the "Nukism"

10/02/2005 12:07 PM

 
Anonymous Bernie said...

Well pig, From the way you talk, (Perosnally I think you are a fake submariner but for now, lets assume you are not) you have never served on anything oher than 688's or Boomers. I have served on three 688's and one of the older "5 boats" Compared to a "5 boat" 688's are plush.

10/02/2005 12:19 PM

 
Anonymous Bernie said...

The bottom line here is......
It was once said that unless we buy 100 or so 688's. we would all end up speaking Russian. The truth is that the 637's held their own right up to the end of the cold war. In fact, the 637 proved more capable in some areas due to the fact that the 688's sacrificed several multi mission capabilites in exchange for speed. Now we are being told that unless we buy 2 billion dollar ORSE Inspection platforms, F-22 "Craptors" B-2 Bombers that break our banks beter than the enemy could ever damage us tactically, we will allend up with Arabs kicking in our front doors and forcing us to bow to Mecca five times a day. For once, I have to side with Congress. The national debt just exceeded 7 trillion dollars and rising. Our economic flank is being attacked more than any enemy. We cannot affford 2 billion dollar ORSE inspection platforms and other wonder weapons. It would appear that the Pentagon brass has joined the advocates of liberal social programs screaqming "Keep your mouth shut and checkbook open!"
As a veteran and now citizen, my vote is to send the designers back to the drawing board and tell them "We are not paying this much for these wonder weapons!" Tango-Bravo is an attempt to do this. Then again, The NSSN AKA Centurion which was supposed to produce a more affordable SSN ended up producing yet another gold plated ORSE inspection platform in the form of the Virginia class.

10/02/2005 2:10 PM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

Bernie (and I am assuming the anon comments are you too, as they have the same tone and ignorance - guess you were too lazy to type, eh?)-

Let's go through this again. I'll be brief, as it appears you have a limited attention span, and, frankly, I feel as if I am arguing with a half-wit - fun for short periods, but tedious over time.

"The DOD is just ... limit is too low"
Blah blah blah. Corrupt self serving, eh? Tell that to 1945 Europe, 1991 Kuwait, etc..

"The CNO actually went ... bang for the buck"
Not sure where your quote ended there. Grammar is a wonderful thing, try it. As for the "quote", how about a source?

"Unless you were ... over there"
Again, your lack of checking things astounds. One simply has to read my page, which I link to, to see I was an officer, buddy. Oh, and in control we had a rotating cast of STS's, FT's, nuke MM's and EM's (tracking party, dummy), QM's and RM's, with the TM's busy as all get out in the room. Hmm, sounds like pretty much the whole crew was involved, go figure. And for those that weren't, you do disrespect to scads of people, not just current fleet personnel, but any who served on a ship in a support capacity. They are just as needed as the guy putting the weapon in a tube. If you never realized this, it is simply a sign of your short-sightedness or your stupidity.

"In this so called ... much less a surface combattant[sic]"
Really? Ask the Cole if surface boats are in danger in this conflict. Or the Stark, because, yes, both Afghanistan and Iraq had surface to surface weapons. So why subs? Oh yeah - first, we were the first ones on scene at the 'Stan. Oh, and yeah, we can't get shot at - pretty nice feature. No losing sailors to shoot our missiles. Surface ships or towed barges sure can't deliver that. Duh.

"We should refit ... service life"
Pretty sure I covered why that wasn't plausible already. Try reading for a change, instead of chanting the same thing over and over, as if saying it multiple times somehow lends it credence.

"By the way ... idea of Expeditionary" "
So this means you think you wasted plenty of your time - why did you keep enlisting? If you think what you did was of no value, well, I'll agree, you seem to be a no-load to me. As for those who served with you, well, I doubt they felt the same, just as I am sure they actually brought honor to their service.

"My Reserve unit ... becuse[sic] of the "Nukism" "
Blah blah blah. This adds nothing to the subject discussion, except to verify that you are, at best, severely bitter, with some old hurts that you can't seem to deal with. Maybe you should consider counselling?

"Well pig, From the way you talk,"
You mean logically, grammatically, and, basically, not like you?

"Personally[sic] I think ... plush"
First - the issue was whether the VA class was plush or not. Again, pay attention. Take some Ritalin. As for me not being a submariner, well, I will not reply with the string of abuse I would like to. Instead, I will suggest that you pass your info to someone impartial, like our host here Bubs, and let him verify us both. He already has mine. It is easy enough to look us up, via SOON or Rontini. However, I didn't see your info there, so I will tell you what I think. I will give you credit for being a submariner, you know some of the lingo. However, from your attitude and lack of mature, considered thought, I am going to work under the assumption that you probably got a Big Chicken Dinner after being busted back to Seaman. Prove me wrong.

"The bottom line ... for speed"
I never said the 637's weren't capable. But, guess what, hulls get old, missions change. They were good for some things, but as the main Soviet threat was to our CVBG's, a boat that could keep up with the fleet was needed. The 688's filled this need, and, oh, once the 637's were mustered out, they filled those roles just fine, too.

"Now we are being ... Virginia class
Again, blah blah blah. Not really germane to the discussion at hand. You are a one note song, Bernie, and apparently incapable of reasoned discussion. Oh, and why did the NSSN/Centurion/Virginia increase in cost per copy? Oh yeah, because the number of boats got cut - the fixed costs stay the same, only the per boat costs go away, so the average cost per boat skyrockets. We have commented on this before, or, as ADM Donald "added that low submarine production actually increases program costs, which runs counter to the Navy's commitment to contain those costs," referenced here. (Look at that, a reference! See how easy that was?)

The long and the short of it is, Bernie, that you bring nothing of value to this discussion. You seem to think that by saying "close the checkbook and and shit them down," over and over we will somehow come to agree with you. If you haven't noticed, pretty much no one agrees with you. I am probably the only one still paying any attention to you, mainly because I'm Irish, and love a good arguement. But, frankly, you don't even provide that. Learn 1) How to present a logical argument; 2) How to use your native language properly; 3) How to type - after you have done that, maybe I will bother with you again. Until then, I plan on ignoring you from now on. You are rather sad.

10/02/2005 4:12 PM

 
Blogger Chap said...

Ahh, our Beanie is just spouting thirty year old crap that went out of fashion when Chuck Spinney got gigged for releasing classified information to the press. It's uninformed by how humans work in bureaucratic systems, or any actual analysis as to why things cost money--just emotional ranting. Ever look at the magnitude of the GDP? Know how to counter Augustine's Laws, or are you just denigrating the efforts of those with the watch? You even see the arguments about such things that have cropped up in the last decade?

And let's just remind you that spurious claims about where an SSN can go, and what they can do, have counterexamples that can be verified by people who have spent time on the pond since Zumwalt went home.

As for the SDV....check the combat radius, lubber. Batteries? Heh. Your comment about ASDS dimed you out. Hypothermia? Seawater injection temperature was a hundred and thirty freaking degrees Farenheit at the pier at Bahrain in August, a little over a hundred in the ops area, and the guys lived to tell the tale because divers and SEALs know their business. Feh. Why do you think the Iranians and Norks have lots of minisubs? For picnics?

Nice attempt to slag a man's achievement, by the way. Real classy. Good use of the "no true Scotsman" argument. You got a GWOTEM? Didn't think so. Hater.

Any chance of having a point worth discussing went out the window in the sea of vitriol and utter stupidity in which you swim. If you even had a qual card, I'd scratch your sig for "plays well with others".

Plonk.

10/03/2005 12:01 AM

 
Blogger PigBoatSailor said...

Ack, I meant to quote him saying "shut them down." It was a typo, I swear. I think I just made your PG rating cry.

10/03/2005 12:28 AM

 
Anonymous Bernie said...

The Virginia class has been limited to one boat per rear and will never get anywhere near the 30 boats they had planned.
Being that all of us here are either hasbeens or wannabes, there is no use convincing you guys of anything. With no major fleet to sink, there is no reason for building more ORSE Inspection platforms and to date, Congress is doing the right thing by cutting these programs. Those who really have nothing to give are those who talk more like they are out of Tom Clancy Novels than they are from real boats.

10/03/2005 10:00 PM

 
Anonymous Bernie said...

Well pig, five boats and doing nothing but field days and ORSE workups tends to disillusion you. Even when on "Spec Op", ORSE drills had priority. Actually, I did submit a GUARD 3 request to transfer off the boats and into EOD. The detailer informed me "If I let everybody off the boats who wanted off, We would have to tie up half the boats for lack of crew." I was one of three 1st classes over 10 who were refusing to re enlist and the three of us not only had to answer to the CO, but we had to explain our actions to the Squadron Mental Health Officer, Chaplian, and Career counselor. When they couldn't talk us into re enlisting, we had to appear before COMSUBRON 11 and tell him in person that we refuse to re enlist. So with 13 years of nothing but field days, ORSE workups,NTPI's Ans TRE's I left.
My last gesture was to rip off my Dolphins and toss them on the XO's desk during my checkout interview.
During my 13 years as a reserve EOD Diver, I refused to wear Dolphins. There are many who sahre my disillusionment, many are in my old reserve unit. So as a veteran, I agree with the critics and support the original plan of 15 SSN's on each coast.

10/03/2005 10:16 PM

 
Anonymous GuessWho said...

Hey Bernie-

‹^›‹(ò¿ó)›‹^›

Hee.

10/06/2005 10:33 AM

 
Blogger Bloggy said...

I really liked your page and it is related to geneva gold watch, until next time!

10/16/2005 1:33 AM

 
Blogger Jayandbubble said...

Great Blog interesting discussions on dropship book why not check out my dropship book site / blog and let me know what you think. There are loads of Posters, Calendars, DVDs and CDs on offer and if you want you can join the Reseller / Affiliate schem and sell the products your self. Go on have a look at http://dropship.postercash.co.uk and treat yourself!!! Regards Jay

11/02/2005 5:23 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home