Posted on 01/31/2011 10:41:10 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
On the American ballistic submarine USS Maine in waters off the Florida coast not too long ago, two submariners eyed a U.S. aircraft carrier through their periscope in the roiling sea. “I think it’s the Washington,” one submariner said. “It doesn’t matter — it doesn’t know we’re here,” the other replied, eyeing the carrier through the scope. “Bang,” he said. “You’re dead.”
In the submarine world, carriers, like other surface ships, represent targets. But lately U.S. aircraft carriers have appeared to be growing more vulnerable to threats deployed from under the sea and in the air.
And those threats have to be taken even more seriously, given recent U.S. government reports about the advancements made in some of those weapons and questioning the carrier fleet’s ability to protect itself.
For example, a report released this month by the Pentagon Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) calls into question development of the self-defense systems for carriers and other surface ships. If a missile or torpedo were to break through a carrier group’s other defenses, the carrier itself could be quite vulnerable (Aerospace DAILY, Jan. 25).
So, what are the chances of getting such a shot on a carrier? One of the biggest threats for carriers — and most other surface ships — is a submarine, and the old maxim says the best way to best a sub is with another sub. But the DOT&E report raises questions about the newest U.S. Virginia-class attack subs when they operate in the same waters as diesel-electric Kilo-class subs, one of the quietest and most popular submarines in the world.
(Excerpt) Read more at aviationweek.com ...
Excellent analogy!
Thank you!
As much as the left has tried to beat us down, and make us not only feel defeated, but have done their dead level best to make us actually defeated, there are some dangerous countries who still fear us.
Fear...it’s what’s for breakfast!
I feel that always deep down we are a country which always desires to live in peace. I think thats what our forefathers always had in mind. Even if we have to beat the $hit out of an aggressor to have it. It frees us for more profitable enterprises.
Interesting, since we didn’t get blown up...
They sent four (maybe five) diesel subs from the Barents Sea, and each one had a nuclear torpedo which they were apparently authorized to use at the Captain’s discretion!
I think one broke down, three were hounded all the way down and forced to surface by our Navy, and one evaded for a while.
Tough mission for them.
...and in true Soviet form, they were reprimanded when they returned to base for failing in their mission.
Things change but it pointed them in the right direction in regards to the development of stealth technology
While I agree with most of your post, I have to take issue with this...
“It frees us for more profitable enterprises.”
While we are a for profit nation...at least, we used to be...we don’t kick people’s butt’s because it’s conventient or profitable.
Sometimes...we are vulnerable.
That time is now...
“Even if we have to beat the $hit out of an aggressor to have it. It frees us for more profitable enterprises.”
I take special exception to this statement.
Your left side is showing...
I think you misunderstand my meaning. We do not go to war for profit. We go to war to protect the peace. In peace we can pursue other enterprises. Hardly a lefty.
Ahhhh...okie dokie. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I understand your meaning, now. Thanks for the explanation. ;o)
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.