Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 67

Thread: Attack the Carl Vinson?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hamburg PA
    Posts
    3,506
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by hotrodder636 View Post
    Diesel boats while submerged are quiet, they run on batteries. Only run the diesel on the surface.
    While diesel electric boats can be quiet submerged, my question is how quiet are Short Round's subs? I mean, sure the latest and greatest in proper repair and maintenance can be damn quiet, but I would be willing to wager the Norks aren't running the tightest navy out there and the tech we have I would imagine is pretty damn good. i mean there used to be the running joke during the Cold War that we knew whenever the Soviet's started up one of their nuclear subs and we knew which one just by the sound signature. "K-26 just veered to the right." "How do you know it was K-26?" "They got a bad bearing in their propeller." This is also assuming that we haven't been tracking every waterborne movement that they have been doing anyway, which I think we probably have. it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to say the Nork fleet has the proverbial gun to the back of the head.
    "I don't collect guns anymore, I stockpile weapons for ****ing war." Chuck P.

    "Some days you eat the bacon, and other days the bacon eats you." SeriousStudent

    "Don't complain when after killing scores of women and children in a mall, a group of well armed men who train to shoot people like you in the face show up to say hello." WillBrink

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    E. Tennessee
    Posts
    2,368
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Agreed that the NORK boats are likely not the best kept, high quality diesel boat, just making a statement that when running on batteries, diesel boats are quiet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kain View Post
    While diesel electric boats can be quiet submerged, my question is how quiet are Short Round's subs? I mean, sure the latest and greatest in proper repair and maintenance can be damn quiet, but I would be willing to wager the Norks aren't running the tightest navy out there and the tech we have I would imagine is pretty damn good. i mean there used to be the running joke during the Cold War that we knew whenever the Soviet's started up one of their nuclear subs and we knew which one just by the sound signature. "K-26 just veered to the right." "How do you know it was K-26?" "They got a bad bearing in their propeller." This is also assuming that we haven't been tracking every waterborne movement that they have been doing anyway, which I think we probably have. it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to say the Nork fleet has the proverbial gun to the back of the head.
    ETC (SW/AW), USN (1998-2008)
    CVN-65, USS Enterprise

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    E. Tennessee
    Posts
    2,368
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    The Seawolf is the gunship of the sub world but with only 3 of them, one of which very specialized, they are not as prevalent as the LA and Virginia class. Plus the Virginia class is badass technologically and newer than the Seawolf. I have many friends who were on all 3 classes and the Virginia is the ride.

    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    Just thinking eight tubes versus four. 79 Whiskeys is a lot to chug through.
    ETC (SW/AW), USN (1998-2008)
    CVN-65, USS Enterprise

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    8,217
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    US nuclear-powered sub approaches Korean Waters


    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04...pproaches.html

    Interesting to see this article. They make it seem like someone at the Pentagon suddenly just said "gee...maybe we should send in a submarine". If there is only one US fast-attack submarine in Korean waters at the moment, and maybe a boomer or two, I'd be astonished (and very disappointed).

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    6,946
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hmac View Post
    US nuclear-powered sub approaches Korean Waters


    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04...pproaches.html

    Interesting to see this article. They make it seem like someone at the Pentagon suddenly just said "gee...maybe we should send in a submarine". If there is only one US fast-attack submarine in Korean waters at the moment, and maybe a boomer or two, I'd be astonished (and very disappointed).
    Two fast boats are usually attached to a CSG; of course, that number can go up or down based on needs or missions. I agree, I would be surprised if there were not more than the two assigned subs.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    8,217
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    The way I hear it, the best defense against submarines is another submarine. Assuming it's true that North Korea has approximately 20 Romeo class submarines (1,800 tons), 40 Sang-O-class submarines (300 tons) and 10 midget submarines including the Yono-class submarine (130 tons), then I'd be astonished (and disappointed) if those waters weren't littered with US fast-attack submarines.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    6,946
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hmac View Post
    The way I hear it, the best defense against submarines is another submarine. Assuming it's true that North Korea has approximately 20 Romeo class submarines (1,800 tons), 40 Sang-O-class submarines (300 tons) and 10 midget submarines including the Yono-class submarine (130 tons), then I'd be astonished (and disappointed) if those waters weren't littered with US fast-attack submarines.
    Definitely fertile ASW training....

  8. #58
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    8,217
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I have to believe that the US is not going to take even the slightest risk in protecting the Vinson CSG, and that in the event that an armed response is necessary for defense, that response would be overwhelming and definitive. Politically, I would think that General Mattis would want to leave the rest of the world with no doubt as to us capability and especially US resolve.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    6,946
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hmac View Post
    I have to believe that the US is not going to take even the slightest risk in protecting the Vinson CSG....
    All ships and boats in a CSG are to protect and support the carrier. I believe if there is a hint, a scintilla of a whiff, of an attack on the carrier, the response would not be subtle.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    12,145
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hmac View Post
    I have to believe that the US is not going to take even the slightest risk in protecting the Vinson CSG, and that in the event that an armed response is necessary for defense, that response would be overwhelming and definitive. Politically, I would think that General Mattis would want to leave the rest of the world with no doubt as to us capability and especially US resolve.
    I love this post.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •