BREAKING NEWS: Military coup in Washington D.C. Military overthrows president Bush.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Cruddy


We don't talk about how good they are...

...but Trafalgar Batch 2 due to enter service 21st century. Of course it's late.

20-30 year old? We don't guarantee the hulls that long.

And if you want a war... why did you sell us all those Trident missiiles?

EDIT: If there's a better weapon system, we'll buy it UNLESS we can develop a cheaper better version outservles.

Which is why Spearfish Vs ADCAP is a good example; Spearfish is expensive (to us) but the money spent on that is maybe 20% what you spent on ADCAP.

See? We can swallow out pride much better and admit we couldn't do it for things like AWACS E-3s... but we're not afraid to try alternatives first.

You can't do that because your beloved defence industry has lots of friends in Washington... go figure.

Could you divide the pride, questions and content? All my impressions are based on service about 15 years ago. At that time, the Brits had decent subs and sub service. My impression at that time was that their subs were a half-generation behind in things like propulsion systems and sonar. But I'm a WESTPAC sailor.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by TCO


Could you divide the pride, questions and content?

Sorry. Honestly don't know what you mean by that,

Originally posted by TCO
All my impressions are based on service about 15 years ago. At that time, the Brits had decent subs and sub service. My impression at that time was that their subs were a half-generation behind in things like propulsion systems and sonar. But I'm a WESTPAC sailor.

20-30 years is hardly half a generation, is it?
But I 'm sorry I misread your statement. I though you said they were 20-30 years old, not that their content was 20-30 years behind US subs.

It's actually very hard to tell, because visitors and outsiders are rare on Brit subs.

It's actually very relavent though, because the only country with a blue water navy which makes nuc subs attracitve is...

...er....

... Go figure. I'll give you a clue, you live in it.

[TCO]

So you are not a Brit sub guy? Yeah, 20-30 might be high.

What did you mean about the later stuff with I live in it. What are you driving at?

[TCO]

I think they had an S5W reactor while we had moved past that (although I dearly love S5W and served on that kind and it is the Chevy V-8 of nuke engines). Maybe they were 10-15 behind in propulsion. I think they were very professional and all that, but not the technology or tactics envelope-pushers.

[Ted Striker]

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by TCO
So you are not a Brit sub guy? Yeah, 20-30 might be high.

What did you mean about the later stuff with I live in it. What are you driving at?

Well, it's NOT the Brits want the capability to declare war on the US.

It is this. That our defence policies are every bit as crazy as yours are.

The difference is, this is a generally recognized fact in the UK, wheras the US is still trying to win the (c)old war,

[TCO]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Well, it's NOT the Brits want the capability to declare war on the US.

It is this. That our defence policies are every bit as crazy as yours are.

The difference is, this is a generally recognized fact in the UK, wheras the US is still trying to win the (c)old war,

Is your point that we already won it? Or are you one of the little Poly maggots who disagreed with us being so tough during it?

[Cruddy]

The point is, the US gives a sh1t load of money to a few companies to produce weapons against a threat THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

Are you one of those fascist worms who insists that might is right?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Cruddy
The point is, the US gives a sh1t load of money to a few companies to produce weapons against a threat THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

Are you one of those fascist worms who insists that might is right?

I have no problem with reducing the money we spend on this sort of thing and haven't had a problem for a while. Now would you answer MY QUESTION?

Oh...and I think it is funny how it bugs people. I mean if we are idiots, who cares. You sound like jealous CIVers.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by TCO


Is your point that we already won it? Or are you one of the little Poly maggots who disagreed with us being so tough during it?

The former.

Calling me a small anything is wide of the mark.

[atomant]

If american submarines are so good, why are they consistenly 'sunk' by diesel electric subs when exercising with the australian navy?

[TCO]

Originally posted by atomant
If american submarines are so good, why are they consistenly 'sunk' by diesel electric subs when exercising with the australian navy?

Probably because there are a bunch of exercise restrictions to make it that way. Also, because the exercise has the deisel as aggressor and the nuke in some sort of CVBG defense role. In mano y mano, the diesel almost always gets punked. And often gets taken out of any useful role. Oh...and even in CVBG exercises, the deisel doesn't take out the US sub. It takes out the carrier battle group. That's fine with me though. Shows that the sub kicks ass (but you also have to realize that the carrier is doing about 6 exercises at once and pays more attention to weather for flying than the diesel exedrcise). Oh...and I've actually never seen a nuke sub lose to a deisel in an exercise. Where are you gettiing this from?

[Dis]

and if it weren't a restricted excersize, the americans would have been tracking the diesal boat for thousands of miles while it was surfaced and recharging batteries.

I'm not saying there aren't instances where a diesal can't take out a nuke sub. Surprise attacks can happen.

And I'd like to know if they ever got a bead on the Seawolf class. I'm sure those are much quieter than the Los Angeles classes.

last part edited: I don't want to pull a Sandy Berger.

[TCO]

cool

[TCO]

and S5W rawks!!!