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.)

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Merry Christmas!

Check out this photo of Santa Claus on the bridge of a Virginia-class submarine:

You can find more pictures of Pearl Harbor-based submarines all dressed up for the season here.

From my house to yours -- Merry Christmas.

"For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord." -- Luke 2:11


Anonymous Anonymous said...

*Now* do you all see what horrible depravity the repeal of DADT hath wrought??!!

12/25/2010 7:03 AM

Anonymous submarines once... said...

Merry Christmas and good on the boats in Pearl. Looks like the PC disease didn't get to Hawaii this season. Wonder how many other ports have similar displays or is CONUS wrapped too tight?

12/25/2010 7:49 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

NAVBASE San Diego does a holiday lighting contest every year - saw one DDG with lighted reindeer all over the bow, and another with "candy cane" lights streamed around the 5-inch up front. Every other ship had either an inflatable, lighted Santa or the living, breathing kind greeting visitors.

12/25/2010 10:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

On the topic of one of my favorite subjects, "Why China sucks, and we can probably afford to spend a little less without losing ground to them." ;-)

Merry Christmas, everyone!

12/25/2010 11:59 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why China sucks, and we can probably afford to spend a little less without losing ground to them.

Not so fast my friend!

12/26/2010 2:48 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your comment suggests that you did not actually read either article:

This is largely due to China’s deficiencies in advanced technology in general and not limited to just space.

But even with China matching U.S. launch rates, that near-parity could take decades — or never happen at all, considering the huge demographic pressures Beijing faces. China’s 15 launches in 2010 boosted Beijing’s space arsenal to around 67 satellites, both military- and civilian-owned

Those quotes, by the way, are from YOUR article.

12/26/2010 5:32 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those quotes, by the way, are from YOUR article.

And so was this: In many ways, China’s ascent in space reflects the country’s rapid military modernization on the ground, in the air and at sea — and raises some of the same concerns. After decades of dormancy, China is finally awakening to its full potential. That means big technical and professional leaps, fast.

You missed the point entirely. With 1.5 BILLION people, at their disposal, quality on our part is not necessarily a trump for quantity on their part.

12/26/2010 8:24 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

That, quite honestly, is just a quote of bullshit posturing.

Yes they have 1.5 billion people... And, so what? They have submarines (but don't really go to sea much), no foreign basing (and no plans for foreign bases), spend roughly 1/10 what we do on National Defense, have essentially zero capability to build their own advanced weapon platforms without foreign assistance, AND to top it all off, we are completely co-dependent on each other financially making any kind of military engagement incredibly dicey for both countries' economies.

And this is what we're scared of... really? I will agree that they might get somewhere close to the point where they have a good shot at trying to take Taiwan in the next 10 or 20 years, but I'm not 100% certain that that is a reason to spend $600 billion/year unto itself.

The fact remains, we are a nation in decline, with a multitude of problems at home... and we're wasting money on Missile Defense and $7 billion submarines. I'm not saying that we should ignore China completely, but it is worth keeping in mind that our main submerged "enemy" is a country that did not send a submarine to sea at all for over a year in the recent past. Hopefully, we can lay to rest all of those "we're already in Cold War 2!!!111" posts and start talking about Chinese defense capabilities in a reasonable way.

12/26/2010 11:19 PM

Anonymous UNSANTAE said...

That stuff would never fly at old NBK, pretty awesome though.

12/26/2010 11:35 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now that DADT is gone, I bet we are going to see some wonderful decorations of boats.Add to that, women serving and the options are limitless. Woo hoo!!! Happy New Years Gents!

12/27/2010 1:03 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anon at 11:19,

You have no idea what you are talking about. If you knew what was going on under the waves you would see why so many are saying we are already in the second Cold War.

Things are continuing to escalate on their side in terms of numbers of missions and in nautical miles traveled while our number of boats are getting older (VA class excepted) and our total #'s are still decreasing overall.

12/27/2010 8:34 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

China is a regional Navy with limited ability to act outside of their regional oceans. Just because you're out there tracking some beat to shit Han (along with a P3, SOSUS operators, Helos, destroyers, etc) every time they exit the South China Sea does not mean that they are anywhere close to actually catching up to us.

After the fact it became pretty obvious that USSR was not really on our level apart from a few incredibly good CO's, we just trumped them up so much to make them scarier than they really were (sound familiar?).

It's really a great exaggeration to call our games with China Cold War II.
- Are there Chinese subs tracking our SSBN's?

NO, it's unlikely they could even detect them even if they knew where to look.

- How many SSBN's do they have again?

I think there's 3 Jin's now, though AFAIK no test launches...

- How often do they even operate more than say, 1000 miles or so from the South China Sea? I'm not positive of the answer to this, but I know it's not very often. Their optempo doesn't support it.

That doesn't really sound much like the Cold War.

I'm not saying that we should ignore China, but the current course is unsustainable. Don't believe me? Wait until budget Armageddon hits at some point in the next 4 years or so, and see what we decide is REALLY necessary.

I'm not against having lots of ships or lots of submarines, but I am against spending $600 billion/year on it. We should, in all honestly, be spending 75% of that, at most.

12/27/2010 9:51 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"China deploying carrier-sinking ballistic missile." Link

12/27/2010 10:34 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Umm Nope. Not to worried about China. Just keep the quantity of MSG used in my Shzechuan pork and spring rolls to a minimum and we'll have no problems. China isn't a hazard we need to be overly concerned about...atleast not now. As long as we maintain a steady bead on them in monitoring what they decide to do next, we should have very few future difficulties with China. They're like small children, you gotta keep an eye on them constantly so there's no trouble.

I hope this post comes out okay. I'm on my new LG Optimus S tonight and unable to log in.

MT1(SS) WidgetHead

12/28/2010 12:42 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

China? I don't think so either. What are we going to have next, another Boxer Rebellion?

Anon 12/27/2010 9:51 PM and Widget seem to have this ridiculous mess in check. We have much bigger globs of cod to fry in other areas of the world rather than pissing our panties over China and what they might be capable of.

12/28/2010 1:23 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10:34 PM:

I'll believe it when one of these things is actually shown to work. China has not even tested this thing yet. I agree, that it's a great capability, but there is at least one or two experts on record saying that they don't really think that China has the technology to pull this off, at least not on a "Moving carrier". I don't think you really understand exactly how difficult to engineer something like this is. You're talking about something that's literally an order of magnitude more precise than any other ballistic missile system fielded by any other military in the world (that I know of anyway). Except it also is that accurate against... a moving target!

Do you have any idea how much of an advance it is to steer a ballistic warhead that accurately while it's in the air that it can track a moving ship and actually hit it? This is similar to something the US military is just now considering trying to develop right now, except against stationary targets (Conventional Prompt Global Strike ICBM's).

And we're supposed to believe that China developed this without testing it, and "It Just Works!" It must be a Mac.

Well, guess what, Carriers can't launch planes while just sitting there. They're literally ALWAYS moving.

12/28/2010 5:18 AM

Blogger DDM said...

Only on TSSBP could a Merry Christmas greeting turn into a discussion about U.S. vs China

12/28/2010 7:38 AM

Blogger SJV said...

We put a nice large wreath on the sail during one Christmas onboard. Don't remember if I went home that year or not. Probably...not.

12/28/2010 8:10 AM

Blogger SJV said...

And Merry Christmas to you, BH.

12/28/2010 8:12 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"China missile may cause power shift." Link

See Gates quote, as well as general assessment (including that of Admiral Willard) that this missile has achieved IOC.

More testing & development to follow? Sure.

More difficult at sea than over land alone? Sure.

Good enough to put in the field in combination with real-time satellite targeting? Apparently.

12/28/2010 8:45 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ DDM,
How indeed can a Christmas greeting (wasn't Christmas 3 days ago?) turn into a discourse on China? Maybe the original topic is stale.

Still, the most explosive topic is really this one.

R. Northrup

12/28/2010 1:37 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

12/28 @ 8:45:

From Fox News:

Details of the missile are still unknown, and the county has yet to test the system. Yoshihara said China would need to rely on a range of technologies to track boats and guide the warhead to a moving target like a carrier.

Read more:

Even if we assume that this thing actually works correctly without having tested it (a dubious claim since nothing like this has ever been completed successfully), how exactly does this justify over $600 billion/year on defense spending? Is Taiwan REALLY worth that? My point isn't that China is not increasing the strength of their military, they very much are.

My point is really a question which has not been answered?
- What exactly are we defending are themselves from?
- How much return on investment are we getting chasing this "goal"?

I don't think we've even really answered the question of what we think we're losing out on from China. The best (only) thing I can think of is Taiwan. I'd rather we spend the money on "not going bankrupt", "schools", and "ensuring our elderly can afford to live".

12/28/2010 1:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Matthews Wants To Know Why Obama Hasn't Requested A Copy Of His Birth Certificate

12/28/2010 2:41 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hawaii’s governor wants to reveal Obama birth info"

12/28/2010 3:39 PM

Anonymous Social Insecurity Complex said...

"Homoerotic Overtones Enliven NRA Meeting"
ISSUE 33•24

COEUR D'ALENE, ID—Repression was the order of the day as the National Rifle Association's North Idaho Chapter held its annual convention this weekend.

{Image: NRA member James D'Alessandro admires a fellow member's piece, stirring potent feelings within himself.}

More than 25,000 dedicated gun lovers from across Northern Idaho flocked to the Coeur d'Alene Convention Center for the two-day event, happily sublimating homosexual impulses amid a carefully maintained facade of platonic camaraderie... (More)

12/28/2010 4:32 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1:57pm -

"What exactly are we defending are themselves from?"

Looks like you should add "teach leftist morons how to write good" to your list of alternative uses of our national treasure.

12/28/2010 4:33 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @4:33 PM

Apparently, doing what is constitutionally called for (legally establishing ones's citizenship to be president) is after all more important than thinking of derogatory names ("Birthers") to call fellow Americans with whom liberal mudslingers have passionate, but ill-founded disagreements.

If the real birth certificate is made public, all Americans will win regardless of its underlying facts. The Obama regime will be credited, as well.


R. Northrup

12/28/2010 5:02 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wait until budget Armageddon hits at some point in the next 4 years or so, and see what we decide is REALLY necessary.

Let's start here - if it's not SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution, but is here, it's eliminated - period.

12/28/2010 6:57 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You dissing China capabilities really have no idea what you are talking about. They are buying up all of the technology that is for sale and stealing what they can't buy. Anything left over is given to them by our own government. In a few years some of you will be shocked as to how China caught the West on technology. You heard it here first.

12/28/2010 7:00 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd rather we spend the money on "not going bankrupt", "schools", and "ensuring our elderly can afford to live".

Ahh, the truth comes out - a leftist tool. I'm all for DOD spending - at least it is Constitutional. Me providing for your gramps is not.

12/28/2010 7:03 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Me suspects that Social Insecurity Complex said... can't wait for the DADT repeal to be implemented so that shim can effect that effete runway walk down the pier without raising eyebrows.

12/28/2010 7:06 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, the freepers are back with their far right wing discussion points again...

Anon @ 1:57 PM:

Really? Nice rebuttal... I don't exactly proofread my internet posts, I suspect you sometimes don't either.

R. Northrup:

People started calling you "Birthers" because you won't give up on this issue that has been proven false again and again and again. Obama's Birth Certificate has been released

Hint: There are pictures. The author held it. You are honestly just as bad as the people who claimed that Bush didn't really serve in the military.

Anon @ 6:57 PM:
Uh, nice thought. I remind you that this would probably instantly stop any military actions we are currently involved in. I also don't this would be a country that anybody would want to live in.

12/28 @ 7:00 PM:

I don't disagree with you, but this is not the same thing as saying we are going to go to war with them shortly.

12/28 @ 7:03 PM:

But don't touch your medicare, right ? ;-) Interesting thought that SSA is not constitutional, you should sue the government and take it to the Supreme Court. Oh, wait, they already determined this in 1937...

And anyway, we have thrown so much of the Constitution out of the window in the last 10 years, what's one more thing at this point? (Note, I'm not assigning blame to any one political party, they all did it... and we should be outraged).

P.S. I'm pretty sure the last four posts are all the same, non-submarining person, since they suspiciously all occurred in a ~10 minute period. Real submariners don't give a shit about DADT, because it will probably actually make submarines LESS gay.

12/28/2010 7:42 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Real submariners don't give a shit about DADT, because it will probably actually make submarines LESS gay.

Really? 99% of guys I served with who are now vets and those still riding boats want to keep fags off the boats. You might want to check out this link.

12/28/2010 11:40 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11:40: how many of those sub vets/riders are gay and won't admint it? The "silent service" after all...

12/29/2010 7:13 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it's silent, as you say, why the need to repeal DADT? Does anyone really need to know that Lt. Sissyfag is, well, a fag?

12/29/2010 8:30 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon @ 11:48:

Unlike you, I actually TOOK the survey... I thought it was pretty obvious what the purpose of it was.

Nobody gives a shit what Vets think because they are no longer serving. Just be glad DADT was there while you served. Anyone who's served recently on subs has seen dudes play gay chicken or whip out their dicks all over the engine room.

By that standard, actual gay people probably seem pretty reserved. I remember a 3 month period where almost every nuke would greet people with some variation of "I want to suck on your dick". Entire watches were spent talking about how awesome dick was and how much you liked the smell of men (jokingly of course.... or was it?!)

By that standard actual gay people seem pretty tame. As long as they're not climbing into some other sailors rack they will get along fine.

12/29/2010 9:32 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unlike you, I actually TOOK the survey... I thought it was pretty obvious what the purpose of it was.

By purpose, you obviously mean provide political cover to those spineless leaders bowing to the PC gods. Otherwise, a legitmate survey and scientific data extrapolation would have been performed.

By that standard actual gay people seem pretty tame.

Coming soon (no pun intended) to a boat near you - or maybe your boat.

12/29/2010 10:15 AM

Anonymous pc assclown said...

Alright you guys, especially you nucs, try out this bit of transitive logic:

Most nucs are geek/dorks. Most geek/dorks are gay. Therefore, most nucs are gay.

One could apply the same logic to the ST, ET, and IC (if they still exist) ratings. Only the FTs, MTs, and A-Gangers are exempt from this logic cuz they ain't geek/dorks (a whole different set of logic applies to the A-Gangers).

So if you’re not an FT, MT, or A-Ganger, don’t stress repeal of DADT. You’re mostly all fags anyway. Now you can wear more than just your silk panties. So dress up girls.

Sometimes you guys are incredibly boring…….

12/29/2010 11:26 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only the FTs, MTs, and A-Gangers are exempt from this logic cuz they ain't geek/dorks . . .

FTs and MTs not dorks? What pole are you smokin'? BTW, nukes won all athletic competitions on my boats. How's that happen using your logic?

12/29/2010 11:30 AM

Anonymous pc assclown said...

Most nucs are gay. Most gays (being in good physical shape due to their excessive nightly homo-aerobic activities) excel at athletic activities. Therefore, nucs have a tendency to win athletic activities.

12/29/2010 11:54 AM

Anonymous STSC said...

I also took the survey and as long as they can show up to work on time and do what they are told - I could care less whether they are gay, straight, or bi. I wrote almost the same thing on my survey.

A large majority of the 1,000+ active duty Sailors who identified themselves as being Submarine Sailors also did not have a problem with the repeal of DADT.

Look it up & use facts instead of anecdotes.

12/29/2010 3:37 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


12/29/2010 5:04 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


12/29/2010 7:04 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

STSC is a pole smoker. Is anyone really surprised?

And just so you know, the phrase is: I could NOT care less . . .

12/29/2010 7:06 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...


12/30/2010 1:55 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

从中国回到正确的英语翻译,但并不是所有这很有趣- 我最后的恶作剧。Pole Smoker

12/30/2010 2:21 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This blog would be ruined if we didn't have you here to provide us with vital information on the VAST PC CONSPIRACY... and correct our grammar.

12/30/2010 9:14 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous @ 9:14 said...
This blog would be ruined if we didn't have you here to provide us with vital information on the VAST PC CONSPIRACY... and correct our grammar."

To whom are you addressing?

12/30/2010 10:34 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously you are a gay infiltrator trying to invade our submarines and steal our vital fluids, otherwise you'd know it's "Who were you addressing?"

I am getting really tired of this gay conspiracy. Now I am no longer comfortable having my shipmates sit on my lap and showing each other our cock rings.

12/31/2010 1:03 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home