I’ve had 4 beers and this still doesn’t make sense
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
I think what he's trying to say is building more of a lesser product isn't going make things better.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
There's no intelligent use case for SSKs in a nation capable of fielding over 50 SSNs.
You should stop reading after he postulates that submarines can establish sea control. That's impossible and not part of our mission. That's what skimmers and flat tops do.
We are a critical component to sea denial, and SSKs lack the capacity to do this in the regions we consider relevant to national security.
I have no idea how this links to stupid liberal or conservative talking points on red eye television.
Last edited:
I raise you the Caribbean and the pacing threat of Tren de Aragua!
Meh. Plenty of the Caribbean is very deep, including the areas off of S. America. Having a SSN full of Tomahawks that can quickly (and quietly) move around seems the smarter move than building/buying a completely new (to the current workforce of the Navy) weapon system that can't go as far or stay on station as long.
I've intentionally stayed away from discussing SSNs in that AOR in the other thread for a reason. But let's just say the idea isn't new.
I honestly think a better question given how well they are doing in resurgent ship building is how long would it take Korea/Japan to put a nuclear boat in the water, and what’s stopping them.
If the Japanese are serious about coming out of their self imposed at this point shell, the greater tonnage allowed with a nuclear sub and the capability you can fit in that tonnage makes a lot of sense. Not that their SSKs aren’t fine examples of technology in that arena, but they aren’t bringing what a Virginia would in capabilities to the theatre problem set.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Japan has an aversion to nuclear and S. Korea would rather not make China nervous about its naval capabilities.
There isn't a lot of popular support in Japan for increasing military spending. The public doesn't like relying on U.S. servicemembers but they like the idea of paying their own bills for security against China and S. Korea even less.
The younger generation in Japan is more inclined towards mil spending than the older ones. Problem is population shrinkage there.
Please tell me those aren’t AI…they are fantastic!
Deep water, shallow water, been done before or novel - none of it translates to a wise use of a limited resource. I'm not suggesting building something new is more wise, but rather wondering if the entire elective SOUTHCOM boondoggle is a good use of anything other than some USCG vessels, and perhaps some independent deployers with helo dets... to answer this question would require some semblance of strategic coherence, alas...
Hey, you gotta keep UNITAS up and running. Talk about a boondoggle !!!
These were constructed by a reservist colleague - patches are being ordered!!!!
My post wasn't to argue for or against the current...whatever it is we're calling it...in SOUTHCOM. Just using it as an example for the discussion since that AOR was brought up.
That said, even in "normal times," you might be surprised by the various assets that have been pushed down there to support one of the primary SOUTHCOM missions. And no, I'm not talking about UNITAS.