Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/3/2006 9:53:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 10:11:58 PM EDT by Bostonterrier97]
fromwww.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060303-040059-5874r

USN resists pressure to order more subs

WASHINGTON, March 3 (UPI) -- U.S. Navy officials are sticking to their decision to buy only one submarine annually for the next several years.

The policy is being maintained despite a strong reaction from lawmakers concerned that the limited procurement would exacerbate problems in the struggling shipbuilding industry, CongressDaily reported Thursday.

During their annual budget presentation to the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday, Navy leaders argued increasing submarine purchases in the short term would throw the service's carefully balanced shipbuilding plan off kilter, forcing substantial cuts elsewhere.

At more than $2 billion each, submarines are one of the priciest items on the Navy procurement menu. Current plans call for the service to increase buys to two subs a year in 2012 -- but not before then.

Chief of Naval Operations Michael Mullen, who has been pushing his ambitious shipbuilding agenda hard on Capitol Hill, warned a major divergence would cause the plan to "unravel." It also would deny the shipbuilding industry what it has been clamoring most for: stability and an end to erratic budgets.

But lawmakers with submarine interests in their districts countered the one-per-year schedule would force the industry to lay off hundreds of highly skilled submarine designers just as China emerges as a significant naval power.

Losing the domestic industrial base amounts to a "serious strategic liability ... at a time when others around the world are rapidly deploying and rapidly building" submarines, said Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn.

Simmons' district includes General Dynamics' Electric Boat operation, as well as the New London Submarine Base. A perennial election target for Democrats, Simmons successfully campaigned last year to save New London from closure, securing more than 4,000 jobs in eastern Connecticut.

Link Posted: 3/3/2006 10:01:42 PM EDT
from:www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1001.cfm

China's Submarine Challenge
by John J. Tkacik, Jr.
WebMemo #1001


March 1, 2006 | |



Sea-power trends in the Pacific Ocean are ominous. By 2025, China’s navy could rule the waves of the Pacific. By some estimates, Chinese attack submarines will outnumber U.S. submarines in the Pacific by five to one and Chinese nuclear ballistic missile submarines will prowl America’s Western littoral, each closely tailed by two U.S. attack submarines that have better things to do. The United States, meanwhile, will likely struggle to build enough submarines to meet this challenge.

A misplaced diplomacy leaves some U.S. Navy commanders reluctant to admit publicly that China’s rapidly expanding submarine force in the Pacific is a threat, but if the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the latest Pentagon “Report on the Military Power of the People’s Republic of China” (MPPRC Report) are any indication, they are undoubtedly thinking it. In a speech sponsored by the Asia Society in Washington earlier this month, for example, Admiral Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, commented,

I’m always asked about the Chinese threat and I say, ‘It’s not a threat,’ because you have to have two things to have a threat, and that’s capability and intent. There is no question that the PLA navy is modernizing and building its capability and is moving very quickly, but what is the intent?

The Pentagon has already begun to answer this question, but it has yet to do so in a way that shows it takes this threat seriously.

China’s Intent

The QDR addresses the question of China’s intent:

Chinese military modernization has accelerated since the mid-to-late 1990s in response to central leadership demands to develop military options against Taiwan scenarios. The pace and scope of China’s military build-up already puts regional military balances at risk. China is likely to continue making large investments in high-end, asymmetric military capabilities, emphasizing electronic and cyber-warfare; counter-space operations; ballistic and cruise missiles; advanced integrated air defense systems; next generation torpedoes; advanced submarines; strategic nuclear strike from modern, sophisticated land and sea-based systems; and theater unmanned aerial vehicles…

According to the MPPRC Report’s executive summary, China’s specific intent is to “build counters to third-party, including potential U.S., intervention in [Taiwan] Strait crises.” The report continues, “Deterring, defeating, or delaying foreign intervention ahead of Taiwan’s capitulation is integral to Beijing’s strategy.” To this end, China is expanding its “force of ballistic missiles (long-range and short-range), cruise missiles, submarines, advanced aircraft, and other modern systems.”

China’s Sea-Power Goals

If they are curious about China’s intent, Pentagon planners might look to comments by General Wen Zongren, Political Commissar of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s elite Academy of Military Science. The MPPRC Report quotes General Wen as asserting that China must “break” the “blockade [by] international forces against China’s maritime security… Only when we break this blockade shall we be able to talk about China’s rise… [T]o rise suddenly, China must pass through oceans and go out of the oceans in its future development.” In fact, it is the explicit goal of the Chinese Communist Party to “increase the comprehensive strength of the nation.”

The Chinese navy—and its submarine fleet, in particular—is a key tool in achieving that goal. The September 2004 promotion of Admiral Zhang Dingfa, a career submariner, to Chief of Staff of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) and a full seat on the Central Military Commission was a clear signal of the primacy of submarine warfare in China’s strategy for the Asia-Pacific region.


Growing Submarine Force

Admiral Zhang led PLAN’s submarine modernization program and oversaw the acquisition of four modern Russian-built KILO subs, including the stealthy Type-636. Orders for eight more are on the books, with the first new boats to be delivered this month. That three Russian shipyards are at work to fill China’s orders for new submarines betrays this build-up’s urgency.

Admiral Zhang isn’t relying solely on the Russians. He has also increased production—to 2.5 boats per year—of China’s new, formidable Song-class diesel-electric submarine. China is also testing a new diesel-electric that the defense intelligence community has designated the “Yuan.” The Yuan is heavily inspired by Russian designs, including anechoic tile coatings and a super-quiet seven-blade screw. The addition of “air-independent propulsion,” which permits a submarine to operate underwater for up to 30 days on battery power, will make the Song and Yuan submarines virtually inaudible to existing U.S. surveillance networks—and even to U.S. subs.

These new submarines will be more lethal when armed with Russian SKVAL (“Squall”) torpedoes, which can reach 200 knots. There are reports that the SKVAL is already operational on some Chinese subs. As well, Russia has also transferred the Novator 3M-54E three-stage anti-ship cruise missile to China’s submarine fleet for use against aircraft carriers. Each Chinese KILO is armed with four of these missiles.

America’s Endangered Submarine Supremacy

In February 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld commented that the size of the Chinese fleet could surpass the United States Navy’s within a decade. “It is an issue that the department thinks about and is concerned about and is attentive to.” Indeed, the U.S. Navy will hold a series of major naval exercises in the Pacific this summer that will involve four aircraft carrier battle groups, including a carrier normally based on the U.S. East Coast. This will be the first time the Navy has deployed an Atlantic Fleet carrier to a Pacific exercise since the Vietnam War.

However, there is little indication that the Pentagon is taking the Chinese submarine challenge seriously. If it were, the QDR issued earlier this month would have recommended that the erosion of the U.S. submarine fleet come to an end.

But the QDR envisions a “return to a steady-state production rate of two attack submarines per year not later than 2012 while achieving an average per-hull procurement cost objective of $2.0 billion.” This means that the U.S. sub fleet will continue to decline for another six years, during which time America’s industrial base for constructing subs will further diminish and the per-unit cost of submarines will jump past $2 billion, impelling further cuts in the fleet.

Of the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s 35 submarines (including three nuclear attack submarines based in Guam during 2006), about a dozen are underway at sea on operational duties at any one time. Under the QDR’s most optimistic estimates, Pacific Command’s sub fleet will diminish to about 30 by 2025.

Electric Boat (EB), the nation’s preeminent submarine contractor, has announced plans to lay off 900 of its 1,700 designers and marine draftsmen engineers over the next three years. This is a crisis. It will mark the first time in 50 years that the U.S. has not had a new submarine design on the drawing board. EB laid off nearly 200 submarine engineers and machinists in early February—and EB is the only shipbuilder in the nation that maintains submarine designers. As the build-rate for subs collapsed, EB used maintenance and repair work to pay designers’ salaries and maintain its staff of highly-skilled steelworkers. But without new orders, EB will lay off almost half of its workforce of over 5,000 over the next three years

U.S. Navy combatant commanders already require 150 percent of the attack submarine days currently available, and these requirements will only increase as the submarine force dwindles. If the United States allows production to dwindle further, expertise will be lost and costs will skyrocket for any new classes of submarines contemplated for the post-2012 period.

Meanwhile, China’s fleet of modern attack submarines is growing: China already has ten Song/Yuan/Kilo submarines in the Pacific today, over 50 older Ming-class and Romeo boats, five Han class nuclear attack submarines, and one Xia-class ballistic missile submarine. In addition, China has 25 new boats under contract now; 16 are under construction today, including a new class of nuclear attack submarine designated the Type-093 and a new nuclear ballistic missile sub, the Type-094.

The U.S. has three submarines under construction today. Although the Navy’s new 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for 48 nuclear attack submarines in the fleet by 2035, the Navy’s top submarine commander, Vice Admiral Charles L. Munns, has testified before Congress that the Navy needs at least 54 boats to fulfill current critical missions. This number will rise as China’s navy expands.

If the Navy does not start launching new subs at the rate of two per year until several years after 2012, the force would dip to a low of 40 in 2028, or 17 percent below the Navy’s stated needs. And that rate will not even permit the Navy to reach its sub-minimal target of 48 attack submarines until 2034. All of this assumes that the Navy does not decommission ships faster than expected due to expanded operations in coming years.

Recommendations for the Administration and Congress

The United States must return to building at least two, and preferably two-and-a-half, new attack submarines per year beginning in FY 2009. The U.S. must begin procurement for long lead-time components, such as nuclear reactors, in FY 2007 and 2008. These steps are necessary just to hold U.S. subsurface strength steady.

The Administration should also work with key strategic partners in Asia to bolster their fleets. Japan and India are potential submarine warfare partners. Japan must also be encouraged to upgrade its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and surveillance systems.

Congress should hold hearings into reports on the editorial pages of DefenseNews (February 13, 2006) and Jane’s Defence Weekly (February 15, 2006) that the U.S. Navy has sabotaged Taiwan’s efforts to procure modern diesel-electric boats from U.S. shipyards by hyper-inflating prices in order to keep U.S. yards from building anything but nuclear boats. A robust Taiwanese fleet would be a welcome relief as the U.S. Navy attempts to counter increasing Chinese sub-surface fleet pressures in Asian littoral waters. The United States and Japan also need an enhanced partnership with Taiwan in airborne and subsurface ASW reconnaissance and surveillance in waters under Taiwanese administration.



John J. Tkacik, Jr., is Senior Research Fellow in China Policy in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.

Link Posted: 3/3/2006 10:04:08 PM EDT
from:http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104AP_China_Military_Budget.html

China to increase military spending

BEIJING (AP) - China's military budget will rise 14.7 percent this year to 283.8 billion yuan (US$35.3 billion; euro28.6 billion), a government spokesman said Saturday.

The figure was announced by Jiang Enzhu, a spokesman for China's parliament, the National People's Congress, on the eve of its annual session.

China has announced double-digit spending increases for its 2.5-million-member military nearly every year since the early 1990s, causing unease among its neighbors. - AP
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 10:10:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 10:17:41 PM EDT by Bostonterrier97]
from:www.ucsbdailynexus.com/news/2006/11113.html


Undergrad Uncovers China’s Nuke Activity

By Megan Snedden — Reporter
Published Wednesday March 1, 2006


Merri Kwan / Daily Nexus




Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) Nuclear Program commended UCSB undergraduate Laura Harrison last month after she uncovered several of China’s nuclear facilities.

The fourth-year geography major discovered the Chinese facilities by analyzing high-resolution satellite images using geographic information systems (GIS) while interning with NRDC in Fall 2005. Harrison identified an underground coastal submarine tunnel north of Quindao, China, as well as a submarine later recognized by NRDC as China’s only ballistic nuclear submarine.

According to its website, the NRDC is an environmental action organization composed of nearly 1.2 million scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists.

Harrison said she was responsible for analyzing satellite images of China, marking suspicious objects in the photographs and then comparing the dimensions of these objects with the dimensions of previously identified military structures. In addition to the submarine facilities, she said she found the locations of possible airplane hangers and nuclear bunkers.

“At the navy base, I saw an obvious water entrance to an underground facility, as well as other entrances from land,” she said.

Harrison said she got the internship at NRDC through the UCDC program, working 32 hours per week and earning a salary of $1,000 a month. The UCDC program allows UC students to gain internship experience for academic credit in Washington, D.C.

Harrison said she worked on the NRDC’s nuclear nonproliferation system to open communication between countries with the hope of reducing the risk of nuclear war.

“The more people know, the less rash decisions can be made,” Harrison said. “Basically, spreading information is going to help people make better decisions regarding nuclear growth and weapon use.”

By analyzing satellite images, the NRDC hopes to assess China’s threat level and make the information available to the public, Harrison said. She said the United States has over 10,000 nuclear weapons, while China has 400.

“It can scare you, or you can be realistic about it and say they are going to build up nuclear power,” Harrison said. “But we don’t know much about China because they are so secretive.”
.
UCSB Geography Dept. Chair Keith Clarke said GIS programs are essential because they are used to influence military policy, as well as help in sighting and map production.

“It is better to have open access so more public agencies know about nuclear proliferation,” Clarke said. “There is nothing you can do to stop a satellite from passing over your territory.”

In the past, Harrison said, the NRDC has used GIS to survey North Korea’s nuclear programs. She said the NRDC decided to analyze data from China because of its rising power in the global economy, and wants the public to better understand the country’s military intentions.

“China is modernizing, and it’s expected they would because their economy supports it,” Harrison said. “We need to be careful in the decisions we make and the policies our government makes toward other countries. The U.S and China are major world powers. It could get scary if we aren’t smart about how we react to things.”

-----------------------------------

To see the Results of Miss Harrison's work click here and here





Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:38:08 AM EDT
So …

Is the issue that we need more subs to counter China?

Or is it that we need more subs to keep sub manufacturers busy?

And what exactly is the navy expected to give up in order to get these new subs?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:43:56 AM EDT
Sweet! I knew there was a good use I could put to this Geography/GIS degree I'm working on. Didn't know I could become a spook.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 1:00:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mauser101:
Sweet! I knew there was a good use I could put to this Geography/GIS degree I'm working on. Didn't know I could become a spook.



www.nga.mil
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 1:14:28 AM EDT
I still say we need battleships.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 1:23:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 199:
So …

Is the issue that we need more subs to counter China?

Or is it that we need more subs to keep sub manufacturers busy?

And what exactly is the navy expected to give up in order to get these new subs?



If you don't build enough, you will lose some of the craftsmen who specialize working on Subs. It is much different than making a surface vessel due to Sub Safe regulations. A whole tome of knowledge lies in many of the older workers and it's hard to pass off knowledge when your not working or you have laid off workers due to inactivity. They don't grow Nuclear welders on trees and any ole welder doesn't cut it, my Dad says their welding beads are so good you have to see it to believe it (The Navy spends big $$$ on their training).

My Dad is a supervisor of Maintenance at the Portsmouth, they have virtually every available drydock full doing overhauls on 688's but I believe most of these are 1980's boats. 688's are fine boats but they are not near as quiet as the Seawolf and Virginia classes.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 2:58:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:

Originally Posted By 199:
So …

Is the issue that we need more subs to counter China?

Or is it that we need more subs to keep sub manufacturers busy?

And what exactly is the navy expected to give up in order to get these new subs?



If you don't build enough, you will lose some of the craftsmen who specialize working on Subs. It is much different than making a surface vessel due to Sub Safe regulations. A whole tome of knowledge lies in many of the older workers and it's hard to pass off knowledge when your not working or you have laid off workers due to inactivity. They don't grow Nuclear welders on trees and any ole welder doesn't cut it, my Dad says their welding beads are so good you have to see it to believe it (The Navy spends big $$$ on their training).

My Dad is a supervisor of Maintenance at the Portsmouth, they have virtually every available drydock full doing overhauls on 688's but I believe most of these are 1980's boats. 688's are fine boats but they are not near as quiet as the Seawolf and Virginia classes.



+1 I was part of the ship's crew during the construction of the USS City of Corpus Christi SSN 705 from 1981 to 1983 at Electric Boat in Groton, CT. 200 knot torpedoes!
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 6:45:35 AM EDT
More subs will really come in handy in the future. Not just for stopping China from invading Taiwan but also as long as we control the seas we control the world oil market. We should probably consider diesel subs too--they are so much cheaper.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:04:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 199:
So …

Is the issue that we need more subs to counter China?

Or is it that we need more subs to keep sub manufacturers busy?

And what exactly is the navy expected to give up in order to get these new subs?



It is also so we can retain our ship and sub building infrastructure. Everytime EB lays off a bunch of workers, some of those workers with valuable knowledge and skill sets never return when EB gets a new contract and starts hiring.

There was a time when the United States was the leading producer of Steel, as well as a time when it was the world leader in Semi-conductor Production. Not Anymore.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:06:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
I still say we need battleships.



Don't start that again.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:24:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
More subs will really come in handy in the future. Not just for stopping China from invading Taiwan but also as long as we control the seas we control the world oil market. We should probably consider diesel subs too--they are so much cheaper.




There is no way the US is going to stop China from invading Taiwan. China will launch the strike and tell the US to stay out of it or they will see it as an act of war against China. What is the US going to do? Start World War III over Taiwan? Not likely. The number of subs China or the US has doesn't matter at that point as it will be country against country and nothing good would come from fighting it out.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:36:32 AM EDT


I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
Cuz you notice that butt was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh, baby I wanna get with ya
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that butt you got
Make Me so horney
Ooh, rump of smooth skin
You say you wanna get in my benz
Well use me use me cuz you aint that average groupy

I've seen them dancin'
To hell with romancin'
She's Sweat,Wet, got it goin like a turbo vette

I'm tired of magazines
Saying flat butts are the thing
Take the average black man and ask him that
She gotta pack much back

So Fellas (yeah) Fellas(yeah)
Has your girlfriend got the butt (hell yeah)
Well shake it, shake it, shake it, shake it, shake that healthy butt
Baby got back

(LA face with Oakland booty)

I like'em round and big
And when I'm throwin a gig
I just can't help myself
I'm actin like an animal
Now here's my scandal

I wanna get you home
And UH, double up UH UH
I aint talkin bout playboy
Cuz silicone parts were made for toys
I wannem real thick and juicy
So find that juicy double
Mixalot's in trouble
Beggin for a piece of that bubble
So I'm lookin' at rock videos
Knockin these bimbos walkin like hoes
You can have them bimbos
I'll keep my women like Flo Jo
A word to the thick soul sistas
I wanna get with ya
I won't cus or hit ya
But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna --
Til the break of dawn
Baby Got it goin on
Alot of pimps won't like this song
Cuz them punks lie to hit it and quit it
But I'd rather stay and play
Cuz I'm long and I'm strong
And I'm down to get the friction on

So ladies (yeah), Ladies (yeah)
Do you wanna roll in my Mercedes (yeah)
Then turn around
Stick it out
Even white boys got to shout
Baby got back

(LA face with the Oakland booty)

Yeah baby
When it comes to females
Cosmo ain't got nothin to do with my selection
36-24-36
Only if she's 5'3"

So your girlfriend throws a Honda
Playin workout tapes by Fonda
But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda
My anaconda don't want none unless you've got buns hun
You can do side bends or sit-ups, but please don't lose that butt
Some brothers wanna play that hard role
And tell you that the butt ain't gold
So they toss it and leave it
And I pull up quick to retrieve it
So cosmo says you're fat
Well I ain't down with that
Cuz your waste is small and your curves are kickin
And I'm thinkin bout stickin
To the beanpole dames in the magazines
You aint it miss thing
Give me a sista I can't resist her
Red beans and rice did miss her
Some knucklehead tried to dis
Cuz his girls were on my list
He had game but he chose to hit 'em
And pulled up quick to get with 'em
So ladies if the butt is round
And you wanna triple X throw down
Dial 1-900-MIXALOT and kick them nasty thoughts
Baby got back
Baby got back
Little in tha middle but she got much back
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:42:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
I still say we need battleships.



No, no. Ships of the Line!
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:44:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
It is also so we can retain our ship and sub building infrastructure. Everytime EB lays off a bunch of workers, some of those workers with valuable knowledge and skill sets never return when EB gets a new contract and starts hiring.

There was a time when the United States was the leading producer of Steel, as well as a time when it was the world leader in Semi-conductor Production. Not Anymore.




When will we no longer be a leading producer of fat, lazy people.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:46:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
www.ucsbdailynexus.com/story_images/2006-03-01/mk01mar06-Harrison1.jpg

I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
Cuz you notice that butt was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh, baby I wanna get with ya
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that butt you got
Make Me so horney
Ooh, rump of smooth skin
You say you wanna get in my benz
Well use me use me cuz you aint that average groupy

I've seen them dancin'
To hell with romancin'
She's Sweat,Wet, got it goin like a turbo vette

I'm tired of magazines
Saying flat butts are the thing
Take the average black man and ask him that
She gotta pack much back

So Fellas (yeah) Fellas(yeah)
Has your girlfriend got the butt (hell yeah)
Well shake it, shake it, shake it, shake it, shake that healthy butt
Baby got back

(LA face with Oakland booty)

I like'em round and big
And when I'm throwin a gig
I just can't help myself
I'm actin like an animal
Now here's my scandal

I wanna get you home
And UH, double up UH UH
I aint talkin bout playboy
Cuz silicone parts were made for toys
I wannem real thick and juicy
So find that juicy double
Mixalot's in trouble
Beggin for a piece of that bubble
So I'm lookin' at rock videos
Knockin these bimbos walkin like hoes
You can have them bimbos
I'll keep my women like Flo Jo
A word to the thick soul sistas
I wanna get with ya
I won't cus or hit ya
But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna --
Til the break of dawn
Baby Got it goin on
Alot of pimps won't like this song
Cuz them punks lie to hit it and quit it
But I'd rather stay and play
Cuz I'm long and I'm strong
And I'm down to get the friction on

So ladies (yeah), Ladies (yeah)
Do you wanna roll in my Mercedes (yeah)
Then turn around
Stick it out
Even white boys got to shout
Baby got back

(LA face with the Oakland booty)

Yeah baby
When it comes to females
Cosmo ain't got nothin to do with my selection
36-24-36
Only if she's 5'3"

So your girlfriend throws a Honda
Playin workout tapes by Fonda
But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda
My anaconda don't want none unless you've got buns hun
You can do side bends or sit-ups, but please don't lose that butt
Some brothers wanna play that hard role
And tell you that the butt ain't gold
So they toss it and leave it
And I pull up quick to retrieve it
So cosmo says you're fat
Well I ain't down with that
Cuz your waste is small and your curves are kickin
And I'm thinkin bout stickin
To the beanpole dames in the magazines
You aint it miss thing
Give me a sista I can't resist her
Red beans and rice did miss her
Some knucklehead tried to dis
Cuz his girls were on my list
He had game but he chose to hit 'em
And pulled up quick to get with 'em
So ladies if the butt is round
And you wanna triple X throw down
Dial 1-900-MIXALOT and kick them nasty thoughts
Baby got back
Baby got back
Little in tha middle but she got much back





+1
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:48:25 AM EDT
Submarines? How can it be argued that we need to spend billions of tax dollars on ships that have never decisively decided a battle?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:58:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Submarines? How can it be argued that we need to spend billions of tax dollars on ships that have never decisively decided a battle?



Other than carriers providing their extremely valuable air support, when was the last time naval forces engaged in a large battle at sea? WWII?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:59:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Submarines? How can it be argued that we need to spend billions of tax dollars on ships that have never decisively decided a battle?



Jigga wha?? So you're saying we should build more carriers?

Submarines would be ideal. The Chinese can't hear them, and can't see them. They're also a good counter to Chinese submarines that are lacking in range and are lounder than a freight train.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:01:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:05:13 AM EDT
Lets not forget that the more virginias we order, the lower the unit cost is. If the sail away cost is $2 billion a copy at one ship a year, it will likley be $1.5 billion for two ships a year. Your getting twice the number of ships for a 50 percent increase in price. I'm in physics, not economics, but that seems like a no brainer.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:29:30 AM EDT
Why not add a couple small electric type subs for close inshore work? Other countries seem to do very well with them. Fairly inexpensive, not a lot of crew, and it keeps the yards busy.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:35:27 AM EDT
another new mission for subs has been insertion of specops guys. that combined with the capability to launch conventional tipped missles from the subs with little or no warning for the chinese makes subs a no brainer for future ship procurement
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:48:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Spade:
Why not add a couple small electric type subs for close inshore work? Other countries seem to do very well with them. Fairly inexpensive, not a lot of crew, and it keeps the yards busy.


Other countries don't travel the world in order to project power, we do.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:57:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Submarines? How can it be argued that we need to spend billions of tax dollars on ships that have never decisively decided a battle?



Maybe their ways don't win battles, but win wars.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:03:06 AM EDT
Build all the subs they want, they have a hard enough time filling the crews on the ones they have already. The nuclear operators on them pretty much say fuck it after being treated like dirt for so long.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:10:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 12:32:27 PM EDT by CLIP67]
Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
from:www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1001.cfm

China's Submarine Challenge
by John J. Tkacik, Jr.
WebMemo #1001


March 1, 2006 | |





I’m always asked about the Chinese threat and I say, ‘It’s not a threat,’ because you have to have two things to have a threat, and that’s capability and intent. There is no question that the PLA navy is modernizing and building its capability and is moving very quickly, but what is the intent?

China’s Intent



The Chicoms are pointing nuclear missiles at us as we speak. How much more "intent" do you need? Double digit growth in military spending - who does this jagoff think there are gearing up to fight? Face it, we are going to fight the Chinese sooner or later. The Chinese have been daming up the Euphrates river for some time now - preparations for marching on the middle east? This is no time for pre-WWII style burying your head in the sand when it comes to military threats abroad. God help us if our next president is a democrat.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 11:59:07 AM EDT
Seems to me that every dollar we withhold from welfare programs and other public services is a dollar we can put towards the defence of our nation. Tell me again why stopping illegal immigration isn't a worthy goal?

-K
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:15:12 PM EDT
We have enough subs right now. Just a few could bottle up the entire Chinese fleet...or any fleet. The subs' problems would be in running out of torpedos!
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:24:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LWilde:
We have enough subs right now. Just a few could bottle up the entire Chinese fleet...or any fleet. The subs' problems would be in running out of torpedos!


I've almost given up arguing these points here. It seems most can't get past the equation: more=better.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:36:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 12:36:36 PM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By LWilde:
We have enough subs right now. Just a few could bottle up the entire Chinese fleet...or any fleet. The subs' problems would be in running out of torpedos!


I've almost given up arguing these points here. It seems most can't get past the equation: more=better.



How effective would the new Tactical Tridents SSGN's be in a anti-sub role? The reason I ask is they would probably have a good chance to be in a hot spot due to their endurance(even though I know that's not their main purpose)...or am I thinking round peg/square hole.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:37:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Meat:
Build all the subs they want, they have a hard enough time filling the crews on the ones they have already. The nuclear operators on them pretty much say fuck it after being treated like dirt for so long.





Link Posted: 3/4/2006 12:49:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Submarines? How can it be argued that we need to spend billions of tax dollars on ships that have never decisively decided a battle?



The department of redundancy department would like to see you about infringing upon their mission area.

Seriously, are you a student of military history? Force on force battles aren't the only thing that influences war. I respectfully suggest that you study the effect that US submarines had on the Japanese war economy as a result of their commerce raiding mission or the effect that the German wolfpacks had on US resupply efforts of Britain and the USSR until we implemented convoys and had air cover.

That air cover was effective because the German boats had to surface to recharage batteries and come to periscope depth to shoot. Imagine what today's subs could do to a world that is increasingly dependent upon the sea for transhipment of goods.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 2:30:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Submarines? How can it be argued that we need to spend billions of tax dollars on ships that have never decisively decided a battle?



Subs don't win battles, the interdict shipping. As the bubbleheads say. there are only two kinds of vessels, subs and targets. Jeff
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 2:36:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Meat:
Build all the subs they want, they have a hard enough time filling the crews on the ones they have already. The nuclear operators on them pretty much say fuck it after being treated like dirt for so long.


+1

Former nuke SWO here.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 2:44:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Submarines? How can it be argued that we need to spend billions of tax dollars on ships that have never decisively decided a battle?



Ballistic missile subs were part of the arms race that won the cold war.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:01:22 PM EDT

Just ONE submarine (HMS Conqueror [nuclear] sinking the General Belgrano) sent the entire Argentine Navy home for the duration of the Falklands War.

The Brits were CONSTANTLY on the lookout for the Argentine subs (one was catpured, I believe two remained). It was probably the main thing the ships did, far over and above looking for planes.

Submarines are extremely effective offensive weapons both directly and indirectly.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:15:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:17:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:21:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:
Submarines? How can it be argued that we need to spend billions of tax dollars on ships that have never decisively decided a battle?




Haven't studied much history, have you?

Believe me, submarines can ruin your day. VERY quickly.



I wonder how the Chinese feel about getting OWNED by a treehugger?
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:28:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
How effective would the new Tactical Tridents SSGN's be in a anti-sub role? The reason I ask is they would probably have a good chance to be in a hot spot due to their endurance(even though I know that's not their main purpose)...or am I thinking round peg/square hole.




It's a double-edged sword, and endurance has nothing to do with it.

They are extremely quiet, and could sneak into places that MIGHT be more difficult for SSN's, however, they're much bigger and far less maneuverable, so once found, the advantage would be lost. All it would really take is one torpedo launch.

So, exceedingly good in one respect, not so good in the rest. I don't think the benefit outweighs the drawbacks.

Oh, and this is assuming that the level of quietness (if any) of the SSGN's is significantly higher than the SSN's, which I doubt.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 4:35:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
How effective would the new Tactical Tridents SSGN's be in a anti-sub role? The reason I ask is they would probably have a good chance to be in a hot spot due to their endurance(even though I know that's not their main purpose)...or am I thinking round peg/square hole.




It's a double-edged sword, and endurance has nothing to do with it.

They are extremely quiet, and could sneak into places that MIGHT be more difficult for SSN's, however, they're much bigger and far less maneuverable, so once found, the advantage would be lost. All it would really take is one torpedo launch.

So, exceedingly good in one respect, not so good in the rest. I don't think the benefit outweighs the drawbacks.

Oh, and this is assuming that the level of quietness (if any) of the SSGN's is significantly higher than the SSN's, which I doubt.



I wouldn't be suprised if the Seawolf and Virginia class subs are even quieter, they are newer designs/technology, and use pumpjet propulsion versus a screw.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 5:53:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
How effective would the new Tactical Tridents SSGN's be in a anti-sub role? The reason I ask is they would probably have a good chance to be in a hot spot due to their endurance(even though I know that's not their main purpose)...or am I thinking round peg/square hole.




It's a double-edged sword, and endurance has nothing to do with it.

They are extremely quiet, and could sneak into places that MIGHT be more difficult for SSN's, however, they're much bigger and far less maneuverable, so once found, the advantage would be lost. All it would really take is one torpedo launch.

So, exceedingly good in one respect, not so good in the rest. I don't think the benefit outweighs the drawbacks.

Oh, and this is assuming that the level of quietness (if any) of the SSGN's is significantly higher than the SSN's, which I doubt.



Pretty much what I figured but I wondered if pressed into service if they could handle the anti-sub role. Of course in retrospect if they"re pressed into service for ASW then they weren't doing their job in the first place.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 7:36:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/4/2006 7:37:13 PM EDT by H46Driver]
That article should be titled "USN resists pork barrel pressures of Conressional members to enrich their disticts by forcing the Navy to procure more submarines at the expense of <pick weapons system> and in opposition to the planning guidance of several senior flag officers".
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 8:59:40 PM EDT


I am sick and tired of you guys who actually work for the Navy in positions of tactics, employment, development and operational use of submarines and submarine weapons telling me that battleships have no place in modern warfare.

I say that the USS Texas can be recomissioned with just a little bit of paint, some brasso and a few WWI Sailors who know how coal fired steam engines work.

The USS Texas proved it's worth during WWI when it had THREE encounters with German U-Boats and it was not sunk.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 9:23:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KA3B:
www.wellandcanal.ca/shiparc/warships/texas/texas.jpg

I am sick and tired of you guys who actually work for the Navy in positions of tactics, employment, development and operational use of submarines and submarine weapons telling me that battleships have no place in modern warfare.

I say that the USS Texas can be recomissioned with just a little bit of paint, some brasso and a few WWI Sailors who know how coal fired steam engines work.

The USS Texas proved it's worth during WWI when it had THREE encounters with German U-Boats and it was not sunk.



It would have to stay pretty damn close to home as I doubt there are any colliers left in the US fleet.
Link Posted: 3/4/2006 10:17:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Ballistic missile subs were part of the arms race that won the cold war.



Yeah and they're full of missiles that can never be used. Deterrance is great, but it's not going to win us any wars.

The mission our military has today doesn't need weapons like submarines. I can't believe we're wasting tax dollars building ANY at all.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 2:15:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 2:36:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tim84K10:

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Ballistic missile subs were part of the arms race that won the cold war.



Yeah and they're full of missiles that can never be used. Deterrance is great, but it's not going to win us any wars.




"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

Sun Tzu
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top