Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
To: SShultz460
“Submariners say there are only 2 types of ships: submarines and targets”
Wow - aint that something to ponder.
2 posted on
06/21/2007 7:39:33 AM PDT by
spanalot
To: Doohickey; judicial meanz; submarinerswife; PogySailor; chasio649; gobucks; Bottom_Gun; Dog Gone; ..
Submariners say there are only 2 types of ships: submarines and targets. . . .One Ping Only!
3 posted on
06/21/2007 7:40:52 AM PDT by
SmithL
(si vis pacem, para bellum)
To: SShultz460
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.
5 posted on
06/21/2007 7:42:43 AM PDT by
RexBeach
(Americans never quit. -Douglas MacArthur)
To: SShultz460
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.
7 posted on
06/21/2007 7:44:08 AM PDT by
null and void
(Tired of living in the shadows? Move to Sunny Mexico!)
To: SShultz460
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.
12 posted on
06/21/2007 7:46:28 AM PDT by
No Truce With Kings
(The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
To: SShultz460
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
14 posted on
06/21/2007 7:46:48 AM PDT by
PGalt
To: SShultz460
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.
19 posted on
06/21/2007 7:50:21 AM PDT by
Mariner
To: SShultz460
This sounds a lot like the talk that I heard in the late eighties early nineties.
Why do we still have Infantry? With all the fire power that a modern air force can bring to the battlefield, with waves and waves of missiles and bombers etc ... isn’t spending thousands of dollars per Infantryman a bit extravagant?
Then a real war came along....
To: SShultz460
24 posted on
06/21/2007 7:51:48 AM PDT by
dakine
To: SShultz460
For some reason, that old saw about eggs and one basket comes to mind.
25 posted on
06/21/2007 7:52:28 AM PDT by
Dr.Zoidberg
(Mohammedanism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
To: SShultz460
SONOBUOY PING!
Not the usual fare for a Sonobuoy ping, but I thought there may be a few who would like to weigh in on the discussion.
![Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting](http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/lazuruslong/sonobuoy.jpg)
Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist.
This is a medium volume pinglist.
27 posted on
06/21/2007 7:53:19 AM PDT by
magslinger
(Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors. And miss. R.A.Heinlein)
To: SShultz460
Some Russian-built boats come equipped with anti-aircraft missiles which makes this standard ASW tactic suicidal. That's a myth. There is no way for a submarine to use such a missile without giving itself away, and that kind of defeats the purpose of the submarine in the first place.
32 posted on
06/21/2007 7:55:25 AM PDT by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
To: SShultz460
Sneak a few of these babies into the Caspian Sea ;o)
33 posted on
06/21/2007 7:56:14 AM PDT by
blasater1960
(Rehavam Zeevi- HaShem Yikom Damo)
To: TommyDale
To: SShultz460
Can’t wait to see the submersible aircraft that go with them.
35 posted on
06/21/2007 7:58:03 AM PDT by
Lee'sGhost
(Crom! Non-Sequitur = Pee Wee Herman.)
To: SShultz460
A well defended carrier group is pretty formidable. Subs are part of that group.
39 posted on
06/21/2007 8:04:48 AM PDT by
llevrok
(I voted for George Bush - not Jorge Bushjoles!)
To: SShultz460
as occurred when a Chinese SONG class stalked the USS KITTY HAWK last year, I stopped reading after this nonsense.
42 posted on
06/21/2007 8:12:17 AM PDT by
denydenydeny
(Expel the priest and you don't inaugurate the age of reason, you get the witch doctor--Paul Johnson)
To: SShultz460
Subs can’t support ground troops, or launch aircraft that can.
46 posted on
06/21/2007 8:21:12 AM PDT by
stuartcr
(Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
To: SShultz460
I am of the opinion that in full-scale shooting war at sea The assertion is meaningless. This opinion may be a leftover of a bad dream, perhaps inspired by a bite of potato salad left out in the sun too long at the office picnic.
58 posted on
06/21/2007 8:40:00 AM PDT by
RightWhale
(Repeal the Treaty)
To: SShultz460
Methinks Mr Burleson just received his dolphins, or is an armchair admiral playing too much “Harpoon”.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson