“Please identify the 1 out of 1,000 0-6s that work at the Pentagon”
Chuck you’re killing us.
-
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
“Please identify the 1 out of 1,000 0-6s that work at the Pentagon”
Chuck you’re killing us.
Zero conflict of interest there. Nope, nothing at all to see here.
Interesting article on the possibility of purchasing diesel-electric submarines and 350 ton Coast Guard cutters to boost fleet numbers quickly.
nationalinterest.org
How to Strengthen the US Navy on a Budget
The Navy could procure roughly seven diesel boats for the price of one nuclear-powered boat—and boost the inventory toward 66 subs far sooner than midcentury.
nationalinterest.org
The threat would appear much more urgent now; the same for our inability to increase production of naval assets - ships, subs, airplanes, missiles.
Col. Ricky Buria (retired now).
Former CO of VMM-362, and on the last man standing from Team Austin.
How a Lloyd Austin aide became Pete Hegsethâs âonly guy standingâ
While Hegseth fired or reassigned several top advisers, a Marine colonel on his staff has ascended.
www.defensenews.com
I used to think that buying a limited number of non-nuclear boats made sense for a couple of missions:
-- Escorting SSBNs or high-value units departing CONUS
-- Playing the bad guys in ASWEXs
I suspect the Rickover-fu in the 1120 community is too strong for that to happen, though. Dunno...
The lack of flexibility of diesel submarines compared to nuclear ones is the biggest reason we don't invest in them, there is a very good reason that both France and the UK went all SSN/SSBN decades ago.
They did that for a while. Unfortunately I can't find a link via Google and I can't remember the details of who actually owned it or who crewed it.
By that logic, we would still have nuclear-powered cruisers. Do the submarines in the fleet have to be equally flexible across the fleet? If that is so, then we wouldn't have both SSBNs and SSNs. One can argue flexibility in a mix of DE and nuke. How flexible is a boat that was never built for lack of funds, or under construction for 6 years plus? . A modern DE sub is not valueless in the 21st century. Given budget constraints and threat horizons the question isn't which option is better in absolutes, but which mix brings the best value. We simply can't afford what we want, both in terms of money and time.
Look to France and the UK if you like. They did not go to nuke subs solely for flexibility. Moreover both have operated DE subs along with nukes in their submarine fleet.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
SSKs or SSPs have no place in U.S. doctrine. Our Navy is constructed around blue water maritime superiority.
SSKs are primarily for coastal / strait defense. They worked for Germany in WWII because their coast is the size of the coast of Texas bordering the Gulf of
On top of that, any force that comes to U.S. shores will be facing a ton of homeland coastal defense assets that are far superior than anything an SSK can do to defeat the enemy forces.
And it's not like we can't use SSNs in such a scenario.
SSKs worked for us in WWII because the Japanese couldn't figure out ASW, and because ships moved slow enough to be able to get our SSKs into position. With modern merchants going 20+ knots and warships going 30+ knots, they'd be of limited effectiveness. Plus we've had advancements in sensors that can pick up snorkeling submarines from really far away. I can't see how you'd get an SSK into a place like the SCS or ECS in time of conflict and have it come out alive.
For SSKs to be remotely valuable, we'd have to be facing an adversary who can mass an amphibious invasion force that includes the capability to establish localized blue water and air superiority over anything we can throw at it, including SSNs.
Last edited:
Yes the limitations of DE Subs is well known. For that reason we know how to employ them given their limitations. Clearly they will not be used like SSNs. That doesn't mean there is no use for them in the battle space. We all know the USN is constructed around blue water ops and we know the looming threat in the WESTPAC. No one is promoting replacing nukes with DE boats. In the entirety of possible conflict around the world there are several scenarios where a DE sub is not only adequate but as good as a SSN, if you had enough to deploy . At least DE subs we can afford can be employed, a nuclear submarine and the dozens that we require and can't afford will not be employed if they are never built or come too late.
We employ a Hi/Lo mix in several capabilities. I will stipulate the Virginia is the bee's knees. But cost and time to operational capability is not tenable right now. Tell me where to find the funds, skilled labor, shipyard availability, and speed production, and I will reconsider my qualified support for augmenting the sub fleet with conventional boats. Until then, the debate is as useful as me debating with Mrs Wink whether we should by a Cessna recip powered aircraft or a Gulfstream jet.
I think I found a picture from a Navy Times article about it. Could've sworn it was an East Coast boat though. Made stops in Charleston and Norfolk.
