 | SubmarineSailor.com Find a Shipmate Reunion Info Books/Video | Binnacle List (offsite) History Boat Websites Links |
| |||
| Bottom Gun BBS | |||
| |||
| At random: "The Turkish skipper of ex-USS Tang, when asked about the difference between the German designed and built replacement boats for their retiring ex-US boats, is reported to have said, "American submarines are built for war, German submarines are built for export." |
 Sea Classic's Opinion on Submarines & MPGModerators: Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] | |
| Forums-> Submarine Discussion | Message format |
Thomas Courtien |
| ||
| Master and Commander Posts: 1905 Location: Patterson, New York | Subject: Sea Classic's Opinion on Submarines & MPG August 06, 2008 Solving the Navy's Energy Crisis Mike Burleson An article in the Virgina-Pilot (Navy wonders, just how do you trim a $3.8 billion fuel bill?), details how the military suffers along with the rest of us with high gas prices. Their's might be the most tragic story considering, as the report details, that vital training exercises are often canceled and ships frequently forced to shut down their engines in order to conserve fuel. Both are dangerous practices when the fleet is under threat from terrorists and stealthy submarines from rogue states. Since the US Navy's first atomic powered warships went to sea in the 1950s, a desired goal has been for an all-nuclear fleet. Obviously because of cost such a lofty objective has been beyond the finances allocated to the service. Now with government as well as the public straining with high fuel prices, Congress is once again calling on the Fleet to build such vessels, unmatched as they are for fuel-efficiency. There is some controversy in this decision because of the extra expense it adds to the building of modern surface combatants, with some estimates reaching as high as $800 million more per ship. No power on earth can afford continuing to build multi-billion dollar warships exclusively. There is an alternative however to costly nuclear task forces. During the First Gulf war, with the carrier battle groups tied down supporting the liberation of Kuwait, the USN turned to its superb fleet of nuclear attack submarines to continue holding the line against the bankrupt though still dangerous Soviet Fleet. Thanks to the power of modern weapons, such as smarter versions of the famed Tomahawk cruise missiles, the submarine could expand this role today to reduce our dependence on these budget draining carriers, their equally pricey escort cruisers and destroyers, as well as the extended and vulnerable logistics chain needed to support them. The advantages of a submarine over an aircraft carrier strategy are astoundingly clear: 1.Though a nuclear carrier doesn't require frequent refuelings, its gas-guzzling aircraft and escorts do. 2.The submarine is a stealth warship, the carrier far from it. The flattop's vast size stands out like a sour thumb while the noisy Aegis radar of its escorts can be picked up by enemy warships and aircraft hundreds of miles away. 3.The carrier, as we mentioned, requires expensive escorts to protect it, as well as costly naval aircraft for defense. The submarine relies on its own invisibility under the sea. 4.The sub is completely invulnerable to the modern cruise missile, the carrier not so much. 5.Submarines are run by a hundred or so crewman, while the carrier requires many thousands. Those who argue the necessity of carrier groups might site the need for “presence”, meaning the sending of a supercarrier into the vicinity of a potential hotspot would often be enough to avert conflict. To this I would contend that ordering a missile-firing submarine off an enemy shore, along with a discrete posting in the Press, would accomplish the same function without putting at risk the tens of thousands of sailors or the enormous expense of such an undertaking, or the subsequent escalation of tensions that occurs every time the highly visible battle group makes a move. The beauty of this strategy is that the attack sub need not even be in the vicinity for this to work! How would an adversary know the difference from the near invisible undersea boats?! Others might also insist that no submarine can perform the varied functions of the multi-purpose flattops. The big ships can perform round the clock bombing against an adversary as well as patrol great distances due to the reach of her aircraft. This argument seems to relate back to the days of when the battleships were the Navy's frontline defenders. It was even said that if the mighty battlewagons with their fearsome guns were obsolete, then all surface warships were in danger of extinction. Yet, the carriers rule today so far, and we have gotten along fine without the expensive and vulnerable dreadnoughts. It all comes down to which warship is most capable of surviving the new warfare at sea, and considering the power of precision bombs and missiles, we believe this to be the submarine. We conclude that 1 or 2 nuclear attack subs with long range cruise missiles could replace an entire aircraft carrier strike group, her expensive escorts, as well as the extended and vulnerable logistical chain. Likewise a squadron of such vessels, 6-10 nuke boats including 1 or 2 SSGNs (converted Trident subs carrying over 150 missiles) could conduct a sustained campaign on the order of a Desert Storm, in place of 3-4 carriers and 50 or so supporting ships. Combining this with the already awesome airpower deployed by the USAF, Marines, and Army, you would have many survivable platforms doing the mission of the handful of expensive flattops whose great cost alone is dragging total fleet numbers down, and adding further to the world-wide Energy Crisis. You may email me at charwriter2000@yahoo.com ### Mike Burleson is a regular columnist with Sea Classics magazine and an advocate of Military Reform. He resides in historic Charleston, SC. http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/honestnews/ http://newwars.blogspot.com/ | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [25 messages per page] |
| Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread Jump to forum : |
| (Delete all cookies set by this site) | |
| Running MegaBBS ASP Forum Software v2.0 © 2003 PD9 Software | |
