• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vladimir Putin stations Russian warships off Australia's coast ahead of G20

You obviously have little to no clue as to what you are talking about. You cannot snorkel while truly submerged which also severely restricts your speed. While running on diesels you can be heard for hundreds of miles and can be picked up easily on radar.

I am a former submariner, in addition to a surface warfare officer trained in ASW in the Navy.

As for WWII, submarines had to be in FRONT of the target and let the target come to them simply because they cannot make any speed while submerged and if surfaced they were sitting ducks.

Snorkeling at 7 knots ain't bad.

When did subs start chasing ships ? I thought they just hanged around in their patrol area waiting for something to sink. You know, like duck hunting. :lol:

It's been what, going on to 75 years since a sub has been used in war and has sunk a ship ?

Look at the U.S. Navy's CIWS on it's ships. Never tested in war. They know it can destroy one subsonic target drone but what about four supersonic Mach 2.5 cruise missiles sea skimming 15 to 25 feet above the surface ? As you know, VT fuses don't work to well over water. But Bofor might have come up with a VT fuse for their 57 MM gun that works over water.

Supposedly the way a Slava class cruiser would attack an American carrier, an eight missile salvo. Four targeting the carrier and the other four targeting the escorts. Then launch a second eight missile salvo if necessary.

The Slava class submarine escort might even get into the game if there's no American sub to deal with.

Don't forget the Slava's escorts.

 
You do realize that there are only 3 Slava class cruisers in their inventory. Right?

Do you realize that today's Obama's PC navy has problems just keeping two carriers at sea in their AOR ?

That navy of six years ago is no more.

War at sea has changed today so they say.

(A2/AD) Anti-access/Area-Denial
 
It is what they were designed for.

NO.

But the Standard has evolved.

The RIM-174 Standard is suppose to be able to deal with sea skimming anti-ship cruise missiles. But it's only has been tested against sea skimming sub-sonic cruise missiles (target drones) not supersonic cruise missiles.

And Russia and China have ballistic anti-ship missiles in the pipeline and all of the U.S. Navy's anti-ship missiles are still sub-sonic.

The U.S. Navy made a wrong turn in the 70's and ignored surface warfare while the Soviets/Russians stayed on the drawing board.
 
Simpleχity;1063981387 said:
Thus pud can't even attend a summit without threatening-theatrics.

USA can go anywhere it wants... that is our God giving right but if the USSR leaves the Black or Baltic Seas or the North West Pacific THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE!!
 
16 cruise missiles could never swamp the air defenses of a carrier battle group.

A single Burke class escort alone could launch FOUR Standard II missiles to intercept for each anti ship missile the Slava launched.

A massed missile attack with Backfire bombers would probably be the only way you could swamp the defenses of a CBG.

Tom Clancy has that idea down cold...
 
Simpleχity;1063984487 said:
Five countries -
1.Bulgaria,
2.Georgia,
3.Romania,
4.Russia,
5.Turkey,
6.Ukraine -

hmmm...
 
Putin has higher standards. Obama uses a covey of armoured vehicles when he is abroad and Putin uses warships.
 
Tom Clancy has that idea down cold...

Tom Clancy had

A)An idiot for an admiral in command of Strike Fleet Atlantic (before he died in the missile attack)

B) A Soviet deception plan work FLAWLESSLY

In fact, despite his affection for the navy, Clancy (and Bond) basically had EVERYTHING work right for the Soviet Navy in the first week or so of the Third World War.

Of course he partially compensated for that by having the U.S. and NATO air forces "get one in early" against the bridges in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Air Force.
 
Tom Clancy had

A)An idiot for an admiral in command of Strike Fleet Atlantic (before he died in the missile attack)

B) A Soviet deception plan work FLAWLESSLY

In fact, despite his affection for the navy, Clancy (and Bond) basically had EVERYTHING work right for the Soviet Navy in the first week or so of the Third World War.

Of course he partially compensated for that by having the U.S. and NATO air forces "get one in early" against the bridges in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Air Force.

I thought what he wrote was gospel...
 
I thought what he wrote was gospel...

Hardly.

Other writers before him (Sir John Hackett) and after him (Michael A. Palmer) have done it better.

Clancy was faced with "How do you make it interesting when EVERY phase of such a war has been planned and evaluated to exhaustion".

Thereby he and Bond introduced a number of "wild cards" into the mix that probably wouldn't have happened or even been attempted in real life.
 
Hardly.

Other writers before him (Sir John Hackett) and after him (Michael A. Palmer) have done it better.

Clancy was faced with "How do you make it interesting when EVERY phase of such a war has been planned and evaluated to exhaustion".

Thereby he and Bond introduced a number of "wild cards" into the mix that probably wouldn't have happened or even been attempted in real life.

I was being sarcastic...
 
Back
Top Bottom