Warship Appreciation Thread

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
An SSBN isn't going to be assigned to protect an aircraft carrier. That would be a "pants on head retarted" - to use an offensive phrase - decision by an Admiral unless said Admiral had no other submarine available.

Sure, a ballistic missile submarine can perform the role of attack submarine in an emergency because they do carry torpedoes. You would have to be an absolute goddamned fucking idiot to assign one to an attack submarine's mission because that's not what it's designed for and the crew probably isn't trained for it.
I forget we have separate subs.

My later point still stands though. Being able to be stealthy and fast is beneficial, cause once caught, leaving is important
 

bintananth

behind a desk
I forget we have separate subs.

My later point still stands though. Being able to be stealthy and fast is beneficial, cause once caught, leaving is important
Better yet, for a ballistic missile sub: don't be there in the first place. A Soviet Project 941 Akula could nuke the US while docked.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Then it really doesn't matter. The subs being on the move to not be caught is the whole point
No, with subs rule #1 is "don't be detected at all". Modern diesel-electrics are better at this than nuclear subs because, even when turned off, a nuclear reactor still requires the cooling system to be up and running to avoid a meltdown.
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
Speaking of submarines, I don't believe any of the British "Astute" class have ever been presented on here? If not, here's a lovely picture of HMS Ambush.

HMS_Ambush_long.jpg


As there are a few yankies on here, what do you make of the Royal Navy's most recent class of nuclear attack submarine? As I understand it, Britain still builds some of the finest boats in the world in this regard.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik


So it seems the Aussies are going for nuke boats of their own now.


LOL New Zealand. Do they even know how to war anymore?

And that's weird, I thought they were still buying the French submarines which I was quite certain were not nuclear.

EDIT:

Holy cow...


That was part of the new trilateral agreement!?!?! :oops:
 

bintananth

behind a desk
That was part of the new trilateral agreement!?!?! :oops:
I was going to post link to a Reuters article on this but you got there first.

BTW: Australia has 1/3 of the world's known Uranium deposits but does not have a single nuclear powerplant. They also have enough remote locations that they can build them far enough away from where people live that a Chernobyl or Fukushima style nuclear disaster wouldn't result in an abandoned city.
 

Knowledgeispower

Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
Speaking of submarines, I don't believe any of the British "Astute" class have ever been presented on here? If not, here's a lovely picture of HMS Ambush.

HMS_Ambush_long.jpg


As there are a few yankies on here, what do you make of the Royal Navy's most recent class of nuclear attack submarine? As I understand it, Britain still builds some of the finest boats in the world in this regard.
The build time of the first couple of boats was absolutely horrifyingly long. And I thought the first batch of Virginias took awhile to build. Other than that they're fine boats I just wish you lot were going to build more than 7 of them( and more than 6 Type 45s, 8 Type 26s, basically the RN needs to be bigger, ideally around its 2000ish hull numbers where it had 34 major surface combatants, a dozen attack subs and 3 carriers and have the manpower for all of said ships)
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
The build time of the first couple of boats was absolutely horrifyingly long. And I thought the first batch of Virginias took awhile to build. Other than that they're fine boats I just wish you lot were going to build more than 7 of them( and more than 6 Type 45s, 8 Type 26s, basically the RN needs to be bigger, ideally around its 2000ish hull numbers where it had 34 major surface combatants, a dozen attack subs and 3 carriers and have the manpower for all of said ships)

2000s? My dude, ideally I'd put it back to early 1990s levels. At the very least I'd want forty-four (four super carriers and forty other major surface combatants) hulls and sixteen attack subs (discounting the four Trident subs). It would be nice not to have to be helplessly dependent on the United States Navy, and we could afford this shit if we put our finger out.
 

Knowledgeispower

Ah I love the smell of missile spam in the morning
2000s? My dude, ideally I'd put it back to early 1990s levels. At the very least I'd want forty-four (four super carriers and forty other major surface combatants) hulls and sixteen attack subs (discounting the four Trident subs). It would be nice not to have to be helplessly dependent on the United States Navy, and we could afford this shit if we put our finger out.
True but the early 2000s levels would be a good first step
 

Lord Sovereign

Well-known member
I think that the biggest problem in expanding the Royal Navy isn't money, it's personnel - they have trouble having enough people enlist, as far as I'm aware.

Ironically that problem is a good deal more easily fixed than building more warships. Beefing up wages and cutting their taxes should go some way to ameliorating the issue.
 

bintananth

behind a desk


Well that's going to be a tricky foul to handle.

Could be worse. Could have pulled up one of these instead:


Note: the reuters article is incorrect. Bomb, Medium Capacity, 22,000lb was bigger. The one on display near RAF Scampton's gate for quite some time may have been live.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Ironically that problem is a good deal more easily fixed than building more warships. Beefing up wages and cutting their taxes should go some way to ameliorating the issue.
Cutting taxes never solves anything. It always makes things worse. 'Trickle Down' is false and failed and, at this point, a memetic hazard. If anything, you'll have to start making sure that the rich pay their share. If you have to pull some Justinian the Great 'brand anyone that doesn't pay their dues' shenanigans, well, if things got to that point then something has gone seriously wrong.

Also, tax:
ddrwj3t-b41ae70d-595d-4815-8517-5b6684baafd4.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top