US military budget: How would you change it?

[Lonestar]

Also, what that article fails to consider is whether the main cost of the sub is producing or operating. Obviously if the sub costs less they can build more, but can they crew more?

Personnel costs are always seperate. No Navy admiral(of any navy, anywhere) is going to factor in pay and bennies when making the pitch to their government for new ships. Then you wind up coming under immense pressure to create soemthing that is dangeriously undermanned.

[Whoha]

So if we were concerned about e.g. the Chinese sinking our beloved USS Abraham Lincoln we could just flip a switch and know where they were in seconds, that about right?

If we're willing to broadcast the location of the Lincoln Battlegroup, which may not be a concern.

[Lonestar]

That's another thing -- Nuclear subs are far bigger than Diesel subs. Bigger target, easier to find with sonar.

Depends on the sub. The French Rubis class is as large as some of the bigger non-nuclear boats out there, but then the French designed it specifically with an export market in mind.

[Hauldren Collider]

Personnel costs are always seperate. No Navy admiral(of any navy, anywhere) is going to factor in pay and bennies when making the pitch to their government for new ships. Then you wind up coming under immense pressure to create soemthing that is dangeriously undermanned.

Is that one of those LCS corvettes?

Those things are retarded and expensive. If we're going to get corvettes we should just use a German or Israeli design and be done with it.

[Whoha]

Errr.

Isn't the idea that you can save a ****load of money, instead of spending a ****load more money to build excessive numbers of subs?

Our subs have one overarching mission: stalking enemy boomers. They need nuclear for that and not fuel cells. Enemy carriers won't likely enter into the equation.

[Lonestar]

Is that one of those LCS corvettes?

Yup, but they're more frigate-sized than corvettes.

[Asher]

Depends on the sub. The French Rubis class is as large as some of the bigger non-nuclear boats out there, but then the French designed it specifically with an export market in mind.

For comparison:

Virginia-class: 377 feet long, 34 foot beam, 7.9 metric tons displacement
Victoria-class: 230 feet long, 23 foot beam, 2.4 metric tons displacement

Which is easier to find on sonar?

[Hauldren Collider]

For comparison:

Virginia-class: 377 feet long, 34 foot beam, 7.9 metric tons displacement
Victoria-class: 230 feet long, 23 foot beam, 2.4 metric tons displacement

Which is easier to find on sonar?

I think what Whoha said is that you can find both pretty damn easily.

[Asher]

Do you know how sonar works? It's entirely situational. It's not like a radar.

[Lonestar]

For comparison:

Virginia-class: 377 feet long, 34 foot beam, 7.9 metric tons displacement
Victoria-class: 230 feet long, 23 foot beam, 2.4 metric tons displacement

Which is easier to find on sonar?

Not saying that the VA wouldn't show a bigger return than the Upholders on active sonar(OTOH the VA would have anechoic tiles made of more modern material. Do Upholders even have that?), but the Rubis-class displaces as much as the Upholders, for example. Nuclear subs can get very small, if you have some kind of requirement for that.

[Asher]

Not saying that the VA wouldn't show a bigger return than the Upholders on active sonar(OTOH the VA would have anechoic tiles made of more modern material. Do Upholders even have that?),

Yes. According to Wiki, the Royal Navy started using them in 1980 and the US didn't start til the mid-80s.

[Lonestar]

Yes. According to Wiki, the Royal Navy started using them in 1980 and the US didn't start til the mid-80s.

I know they started using them on the Trafalgars in 1980, that wasn't the question. What about the Upholders?

(A Proper BRITISH name)

[Lonestar]

Found it. They do.

[Asher]

I know they started using them on the Trafalgars in 1980, that wasn't the question. What about the Upholders?

(A Proper BRITISH name)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria_class_submarine

The boats were designed and built by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd for the Royal Navy and are essentially identical to modern nuclear submarines (with the distinctive Albacore-derived teardrop hull and sonar-absorbing tiles) but run on diesel engines instead of nuclear reactors. These were Britain's first conventional submarines to feature the tear-drop shape, which greatly reduced the acoustic signature produced by the boat while cruising.

The boats were designed with advanced noise-attenuation features to reduce the radiated noise levels below those of the already very quiet Oberon class. There was also a reduction in the short time required to recharge the batteries to ensure a minimum exposure time of any part of the masts above the water.

[Lonestar]

One post up Asher.