Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Flightdeck
"This allows the Navy to distribute the spending on both anti-sub and advanced sonar; don't forget carriers have their own LA class subs with them."

That's fine, but keep in mind that there are more torpedo threats to our carriers than from noisy enemy subs.

For instance, Iran is known to field light torpedo boats that are capable of swarming in large numbers (say, 75 at once) from the marshes and islands in the narrow straights of the Persian Gulf.

Sure, we'll kill most of those boats before they get off a shot, and we'll kill *all* of them before the day ends, but *why* let our carrier get ambushed by such outdated technology?! One of those torpedoes could easily score a hit in those sorts of shallow, narrow waters.

Yet if we automate grenade launchers for close-in, depth-charge catapults for medium range, and sea-penetrating mortars for "long" range into our Sonar detection systems, we could stop *all* torpedoes. Such devices simply don't fare very well next to an exploding grenade, mortar, or depth charge.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

10 posted on 08/07/2004 10:58:27 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Southack

Just curious. . .what weapons or weapon's systems under development do you support?

For the Army?

For the Navy?

Marines?

Air Force?

Just asking.


12 posted on 08/08/2004 4:41:36 AM PDT by Gunrunner2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson