Posted on 04/15/2016 12:20:55 PM PDT by C19fan
The U.S. Armed Forces operate a wide array of sophisticated weaponry, in many cases superior to anything else in the world. But while the new destroyers, carriers, or the F-22 might have no equal, the U.S. Armed Forces face a significant gap in their capabilities: the total lack of any conventional submarines.
(Excerpt) Read more at thediplomat.com ...
The earlier thread with the full article and comments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3421137/posts
I’ve long been an advocate of a fleet of conventional, low cost, coastal protection subs.
Please delete due to duplicate post
Agreed. Rather than put all of our eggs in one basket or baskets we need the force multiplier that cheaper ships in larger quantities can provide. The current littoral ship is an example of an over wrought design that ends up not meeting it;s mission and being fragile.
How about 4.
Two for the Repub Convention and two for the Dem Convention.
Agree with the idea that many less expensive fighting units makes more sense than a few billion dollar items. Several hundred Warthogs would be far more of a deterrent than a few dozen million dollar F35 JSFs. Time over target is important.
Agree with the idea that many less expensive fighting units makes more sense than a few billion dollar items. Several hundred Warthogs would be far more of a deterrent than a few dozen million dollar F35 JSFs. Time over target is important.
until they have to raise their snorkel and start their diesel engines to recharge their batteries every X number of hours.
We’d have to buy them in great volume from another country. Whom do you suggest?
It would nice if they just bought three of them (German or Sweden) and parked them in the Philipines.
They can run on hydrogen peroxide and diesel in the event they have to stay down long, or something similar...
Torpedo mines are cheap and cheerful.
I pretty much agree with this article. As long as the conventionals are Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) plants. They have excellent endurance and are “hole-in-the-ocean” quiet while running AIP.
That the USN needs conventional diesel-electric subs is something I have said for years. However, the US Navy will not accept any thin less than SSN fast attacks; diesel-electric subs need not apply. Also, there are no US shipyards that can build a conventional diesel-electric sub. USN subs have to be built in US shipyards. South Korea asked the US to build some conventional boats for it years ago, but there weren’t any US yards that could do it. Nothing nas changed.
As for Warthogs and conventional subs...., those who valiantly crew them sit in lonely corners of the EM/NCO/Officers' Clubs forsaking glory and ass-kissing promotions!
As for Warthogs and conventional subs...., those who valiantly crew them sit in lonely corners of the EM/NCO/Officers' Clubs forsaking glory and ass-kissing promotions!
I didn’t know submarines engines could run on hydrogen peroxide. I use it to clean the wax out of my ears and on minor cuts.
One of my friends, a Brigadier General, wrote an article asking where we were going to get all the cheap pilots to fill those cheap cockpits. No one ever did answer him.
I tried another approach. I built a computer model in which effectiveness was proportional to cost: half as expensive an airplane is half as effective. I then ran a combat model between two equal-cost Air Forces, with one using all high-performance fighters, and the other using an equal-cost mix of high and lower (not necessarily low) performance fighters. Again, total cost of the two Air Forces was the same. The side using the lower-performance aircraft had more aircraft than the Air Force with all high-performance and higher-cost aircraft. ("Fill the sky with cheap airplanes!")
The combat model I used was the Lanchester Attrition Equations, which were considered standard at the time.
For a wide range of performance levels (and of course costs) for the lower-performance aircraft, the results were the same. The low-performance aircraft got slaughtered. Even the higher-performance aircraft in the side with the high-low mix were outnumbered and got wiped out.
Yes, I know Leon Trotsky said "Quantity has a quality all its own." Sometimes overwhelming numbers can carry the day, even if they suffer a much higher loss ratio than their lower-numbered but more effective opponents.
Filling the sky with ineffective targets, regardless of how cheap they are, doesn't win air battles.
I presented my results at an Operations Research Society meeting in Denver. It just missed getting an award because the committee felt I should have included dollar costs.
"Well there's your problem!"
Rule: First 80% of performance comes from 20% of final cost, last 20% takes the rest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.