An All-Submarine Navy(?)

OpinionEditorials ^ | 6-19-07 | Mike Burleson

[spanalot]

“Submariners say there are only 2 types of ships: submarines and targets”

Wow - aint that something to ponder.

[SmithL]

Submariners say there are only 2 types of ships: submarines and targets. . . .

One Ping Only!

[edcoil]

Actually we say there are only two types of vessels submarines and targets.

Ships on the surface. Submarines are called boats.

[RexBeach]

So far as I know, new destroyers may be slower than WW2 counterparts. I believe Fletcher Class DDs were capable of speeds as high as 35 to 38 knots. I am correct on that?

I love aircraft carriers, but if they are attacked by waves of cruise missiles launched from a long way out, how would one evade and survive?

Interesting post, thanks.

[bmwcyle]

[null and void]

Submarines are good. Submarines are grand. But,

They make terrible aircraft carriers, and.

A single technological breakthrough that ‘renders the sea transparent’ puts the entire fleet at risk.

[SShultz460]

I’ll lay it out...

Nuke ELT MM2(SS)

:)

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I worked for the Navy for 8 years, and I know a lot of aviators that would violently disagree with this analysis. Aircraft cannot take off from a sub. In a full scale war with China or Russia, this analysis has a lot of validity, but the likelihood of such a war is remote. We still need surface ships and carriers to extend our power to protect our forces, allies and the sea lanes from all the other bad guys in the world.

[SShultz460]

Seawolf class challenges that speed, I won’t go further

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Great Lakes ore carriers are also “boats.”

[No Truce With Kings]

Well, if the only function a navy has is controlling the seas, this submarines are the way to go. If you want to control the air over the oceans, or project power ashore you need surface vessels.

I think Mr. Burleson’s vision of what a navy is for seems pretty one-dimensional.

[SShultz460]

I forgot former...

I been civi for the last 5 years

[PGalt]

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

[SShultz460]

Been there done that :)

[ken5050]

Thought provoking article. We may well see in the near future if his arguments have any merit. We now have 3 or 4 carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf...as a counter to Iran. It’s a small body of water, and the Chinese made Silkworm missiles..mounted on shore and on Iranian missile gunboats...are a threat to the carriers.

[edcoil]

I agree, subs are simply part of a full solution and anyone thinking just one platform would work - don’t know what they are talking about.

Surface ships do have a lot of defense on them however, one subroc would ruin a convoy’s day.

[ken5050]

FYI

[Mariner]

This guy is a retard poser.

I'd like to see ANY fleet in the world...or combined fleet...challenge a combined US Carrier task force at sea.

While there may be some risk in coastal waters, noting can compete with a full battle group. They bring subs for sub-surface protection...and the aircover makes all the difference.

If you want the ability to P R O J E C T power, there's no substitute.

[cripplecreek]

Ships on the surface. Submarines are called boats.

In Chappaquiddick they call them oldsmobiles.