We have 42 active Los Angles class hunter-killer submarines

[DainBramaged]

why?


http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/sbf/fleet_10.htm

[L0oniX]

1. GE/General Electric - We Bring Good Things To Life ...blah blah blah

1982 commercial

[PavePusher]

2. 42 subs for approx. 138 million square miles of ocean?

I'd say we don't have enough subs.

[HooptieWagon]

7. Agreed.

At any given time, several will be undergoing overhaul, maintanence, or repairs. Several will be tracking other country's missle subs that are at sea. Some are in carrier battle groups, as an anti-sub protection. And some are stationed near port entrances or straights where they can control ship movements in case of hostilities. 42 really doesn't sound like enough.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

33. Censored

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

[apocalypsehow]

73. I think you've read one too many Tom Clancy novels. Pro tip: the Red Navy is defunct. n/t.

[HooptieWagon]

74. Do you know what Putin is planning for in 10 years?

And the Chinese are building a modern navy as fast as they can.

[apocalypsehow]

75. Yeah, it's just 1962 all over again, ain't it?

The Cold War is over, in case you hadn't heard: the United States Navy does not need 42 submarines during peacetime, period. It really is that clear and simple.

[HooptieWagon]

77. You want the Navy to return to coal-powered battleships?

The Navy should have modern ships (including subs), and enough of them to respond to any situation that might occur in the next 20 years. It is not acceptable to wait until the subs are an emergency need, they take too long to build. The US has currently 52 attack subs, which is less than half the US had in 1941. Of the 52, 42 are the LA boats which were designed in the 60s.

[apocalypsehow]

79. You always whittle away the afternoons putting words in other poster's mouths?

Or keyboards, as the case may be.

I said the following: "The Cold War is over, in case you hadn't heard: the United States Navy does not need 42 submarines during peacetime, period. It really is that clear and simple."

I don't care one whit about this panicky jazz regarding "an emergency need" (let alone the fact that it's a false claim: the U.S. Navy has a huge mothball fleet), or any other of the Tom Clancyish nonsense about how the military needs more of everything, now.

I say again: the United States Navy does not need 42 submarines during peacetime, period. It really is that clear and simple.

Period.

[HooptieWagon]

80. How many submarines do you think the US needs?

And how do you think they should be deployed?You obviously consider yourself an expert.

[apocalypsehow]

81. How many raging wars you got going on with naval powerhouses at the moment?

That's how many you should have active and on commission, Hooptie. Mothballs for the boats till you can find us another IJN to fight.

[HooptieWagon]

82. So we wait until a war occurs to build subs and train submariners?

Any boat that isn't in use deteriorates much faster than a boat in use. So if the LAs are mothballed, leaving the US with only 10 subs in service, your plan if China were to happen to attack, is to clean up and recondition a bunch of subs built with 60s technology, train crews, and send them to sea? That would be like waiting until Pearl Harbor happened before training pilots, and then sending them up in biplanes.
Look, Im just as mad about Bush's military adventurism as anyone... the lives and money thrown away. And certainly the military procurement system is fraught with corruption and cronyism, and needs to be reformed. But the answer is not to have the military stand down and cease training, operations, and modernization when not at war. That would leave us totally unprepared if war did break out. Some of you people are completely clueless.

[apocalypsehow]

84. Once again, putting words in another poster's mouth & bizarre scenarios full of "ifs" and

Clancyish phantasms (along with, of course, the ubiquitous personal attacks).

I'll say it again:

I don't care one whit about this panicky jazz regarding "an emergency need" (let alone the fact that it's a false claim: the U.S. Navy has a huge mothball fleet), or any other of the Tom Clancyish nonsense about how the military needs more of everything, now.

I say again: the United States Navy does not need 42 submarines during peacetime, period. It really is that clear and simple.

Period.

I guess if I repeat it enough, you'll catch on.


Edit: typo.

[HooptieWagon]

86. Since you refuse to answer how many we do need...

either you mean zero, or you are completely clueless on the role subs play. Im guessing the latter, which makes your opinion less than worthless. Have a nice day.

[apocalypsehow]

87. I have "refused" no such thing - you either failed to read what I wrote, or are incapable

of comprehending the sentences you read. I'd get that checked out, were I you.

In any event, what has actually transpired is I have given an opinion with which you disagree. Instead of simply pointing out where you disagree and moving on, you have instead chosen to indulge in personal attacks and spin outlandish scenarios that are implausible to say the very least.

You have created a sub-thread based solely upon your incredulity that anyone could possible disagree with your opinion. Quite typical.

And now you part with another personal attack, followed by the internet equivalent of stomping off. Also quite typical.

[LanternWaste]

109. We may only imagine you have full knowledge of precisely how many the US needs, then?

We may only imagine you have full knowledge of precisely how many the US needs, then?

Or is your opinion also worth less than zero?

[HooptieWagon]

113. The number needed is fairly easy to estimate,

although there are some people whose agenda is to cease any military spending. There are 11 carrier task forces. They are currently operating with 2 sub escorts each. This is sufficient in peaceful waters, but should be 4 in possibly hostile waters... call it an average of 3, for 33 subs necessary for carrier task force missions. The Russians currently have 15 ballistic missle subs in service (3 Typhoons, 12 Deltas), The Chinese have 5 (1- 092 class, 4- 094 class). Each should have a tail, that adds another 20 attack subs. Maybe a dozen are needed for individual missions; sea patrol, blockade duty, or special ops. Perhaps about 10 would be out of service at any given time for repairs, overhaul, or training duty. So, my admittedly inexpert rough estimation shows a need for about 75 attack submarines. Obviously not all will be the newest classes, the most recently built LAs won't be retired for another 15+ years. And possibly the Navy can get by with a few less, but I think the current 52 is several boats too few.

[oneshooter]

88. I believe that you want to take the military

back to the equivalent levels of 1940.
Broom sticks for rifles, trucks with "tank" signs on them, rocks as grenades, pine logs as "machine guns".

Oneshooter

[apocalypsehow]

89. I don't really care what you believe, oneshooter. But thanks for sharing. n/t.

[Johnny Rico]

90. There are many on this forum who would like to do just that.

Luckily, they have virtually no practical influence on politics.

[HooptieWagon]

92. Agreed. The way to keep servicepeeps effective and safe...

is to give them the best tools and training possible. Less than that, and their lives are in greater danger and the country is lulled into a false sense of security. Mothballing subs deprives the carrier groups of the extra layer of anti-sub protection they need (and theyre already operating 2 boats short of what is really needed), and leaves the Navy short of subs for other mission. It also prevents additional sailors from getting the training they need. It is a ridiculous and foolish notion, promoted by some posters, that mothballed subs can be quickly put in service and a crew pushed aboard, and have any chance of being effective. More than likely the sub and crew would be lost. It would take a year to overhaul a mothballed sub, and likely 2 more years to train a crew. If hostilities arise with another country, we can't call a 3 year timeout to prepare a sub fleet. Some people are farging idiots.

[LanternWaste]

110. I imagine that number is only exceeded by those who believe the US should spend more on its militar

"here are many on this forum who would like to do just that..."

I imagine that number is only exceeded by those who believe the US should spend more on its military budget than the next eleven largest countries combined.

(I can see the convenience in projecting what we may believe others think in order to better validate out opinions... very convenient, simplistic and fallacious, indeed)

[HooptieWagon]

114. Obviously there is a big problem with the procurement system.

A lot of money could be saved by reforming it... not allowing military brass to be employed as lobbyists by the MIC is one example.

[Johnny Rico]

116. Are you seriously asserting that there aren't many on this forum who would like to see

the US military budget drastically cut (say, 50% or more)?

I imagine that number is only exceeded by those who believe the US should spend more on its military budget than the next eleven largest countries combined.

Actually, I would assert that the consensus opinion on this forum is that there should be substantial (but not radical) cuts in the US military budget. Disagree?

[HooptieWagon]

118. I don't doubt that many would like to see the military budget cut 50%.

Frankly, they are living in a fantasy world. The budget is not just new weapons... a sizeable portion is salaries, pensions, maintenence and replacement parts, not to mention fuel costs; and thats not including Bush's wars. R&D and new weapon procurement costs could be reduced by reforming the process, but that might be much less than 10% of the entire military budget. Worthwhile, IMO. But a 50% cut is simply not feasable. That would entail ceasing all new weapons (although R&D costs still are due), halting all maintenece, slashing personel and pensions, and severely cutting training. That would be suicide.

[FrodosPet]

107. Does it need them in wartime?

Should we at least have the designs and plans and materials on standby so we can build them in DAYS if needed?

[HooptieWagon]

115. You can't build them in days.

They are much larger and far more complex than knocking out a WW2 Liberty ship in a couple weeks. I think the US currently launches 2-3 new subs a year, on average. That might be stepped up to 5, but a second facility and trained workforce would be needed to increase production beyond that. Then there is several months of "fitting out" - adding weapons systems, navigation, communications and sonar systems, and a few weeks of sea trials, and many months of officer and crew training.
If major hostilities ever break out, we are going to war with the ships, planes, etc that we have on hand. IMO there won't be a prolonged war where domestic manufacturing can be converted to military production, as occured in WW2.

[Johnny Rico]

117. I have to laugh when I see people argue that we should wait until we're in a major war before

building up military hardware. The keel of the USS Ford (our next aircraft carrier) was laid down in 2009. It isn't scheduled to join the fleet until 2015. The JSF contract which ended in the development the F-35 Lightning II was granted in 1996, and the first prototypes didn't get built until 2006.

You're absolutely right about going to war the the hardware on hand. Modern weapons simply take too long to develop and build for it to be otherwise.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

29. Censored.

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 09:08 AM - Edit history (1)

[dionysus]

49. Brad, what's the point of posting people's profile info?

[Robb]

51. 9 hidden posts, 17 ignoring, 1200 Meta posts in 90 days.

Seems pretty clear to me.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

54. 17 ignoring is baby shit compared to one I saw the other day with 62 ignoring.

That was double or triple any other displayed page. Past Lozoco levels. 17 seems about par for our more prolific posters. The person I'm referring to had 5 hides.

I think 17 is no big deal. When you get in to the 50-60 plus range you are in disruptor territory and the admins should take a look.

[Posteritatis]

56. 1200? Oy. (nt)

[PavePusher]

57. 1200 Meta posts? Huh? Where do you see that?

And if you have a point, please make it clearly and to my 'face'.

Thanks.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

62. In the other poster's profile. LOL

[PavePusher]

63. Ah, thank you.

I lost track of who was talking about whom.

[dionysus]

65. it was a rhetorical question, Mr Dingbat

[HopeHoops]

3. You never know when the Germans will invade.

[11 Bravo]

4. They might attack Pearl Harbor again!

[DainBramaged]

9. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[guardian]

5. How many attach subs should the U.S. have? n/t

[hack89]

6. That number will rapidly shrink

they are decommissioning 3 to 4 every year.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. To protect us from the mighty Taliban navy's aircraft carriers and nuclear subs.

Which are now hidden in caves and only awaiting the building of a canal to the North Sea.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[FrodosPet]

108. And China? What a joke.

They have what? A half dozen rowboats armed with nothing more than a 12 gauge shotgun and a box of hand grenades.

China, Pootie Poot's resurgent Russia, North Korea...why would we ever need a Navy?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. Not to mention resurgent Andorra and Mighty Lichtenstein.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[FrodosPet]

112. Mencken is a goldmine of quotes

. Communism, like any other revealed religion, is largely made up of prophecies.

. Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

. Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.

. Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good.

. I confess I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing.

. Love is an emotion that is based on an opinion of women that is impossible for those who have had any experience with them.

. The common argument that crime is caused by poverty is a kind of slander on the poor.

. The theory seems to be that as long as a man is a failure he is one of God's children, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil.

---------------------------------

Not always in agreement with these quotes, but they are fascinating.

[HooptieWagon]

10. By my rough count,

the US had approximately 110 fleet subs of various models in service at the time of Pearl Harbor. These were built between 1918 and 1941. Another 215 were built during the war, primarily of the Gato class. Some of the earlier subs were used for training when the Gatos came in to service, some were transfered to allies, some remained in service untill the end of the war. It appears the Navy discontinued use of all the pre-WW2 subs at the ending of the war.
Of the Gato class boats, it appears some continued in commission by the US Navy until the 70s (but perhaps in mothballs?), some that were sold to other countries appear to have been in use until as recent as 1990.
The Los Angeles class boats can remain at sea far longer than even the Gato boats, maybe 1 LA = 2 diesel/electric subs? So, maybe somewhere around 55-60 Los Angeles boats might be a desireable number, in my estimation.

[bongbong]

11. The MIC

Somebody has to provide jobs for all the repigs in Red States.

[PavePusher]

14. You don't think there are any Democrats employed in sub-building yards...

or Naval repair/refit yards?

Really?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

30. With that I agree.

That doesn't make it right.

[bongbong]

103. My Comment

My comment was mainly a re-statement of the fact that Blue States subsidize Red States. An awful lot of that money going from Dem wallets into free-loading Red States is via MIC spending.

[KatChatter]

25. the vast majority of Submarines built in America are built by Electric Boat in Groton, CT

with UNION labor BTW.

[bongbong]

104. Yes, but ....

See my post #103 in this thread.

[Cronkite]

12. WHEN (not if) our war with China kicks off I want those subs to be on the Chinese subs.....

...like white on rice. I would prefer not to be nuclearized by a Chinese sub launched ballistic rocket.

Economic turmoil always ends in a war. Sure, it would suck but it will probably happen. It would suck even more if China was able to use their sub launched rockets to nuke us.

(Besides, think of the employment those subs provide)

[DainBramaged]

16. I would prefer not to be nuclearized by a Chinese sub launched ballistic rocket

yeah. China will "nuclearize" us, but when they own this country and it's debt how do you possibly see this as a threat?. And who would buy their crap India? Brazil? They make their own cheap crap.


We won, they are Capitalists now. Why is being 'prepared' for nuclearization so important when they spend 1/4 of what we do for their military budget?



Your logic makes my head hurt. Sure you are on the correct website?

[Cronkite]

41. I was being somewhat sarcastic.....

Seriously though, there is a serious national security threat posed by submarine launched ballistic missiles. Suppose North Korea obtains/develops the technology to launch at sea? How about Iran?

The point I was trying to make is that unless there is the capability in the Naval fleet to track and kill these threats we will be at risk.

By the way, why is it that the Navy has decided to shift 60% of its asset to the Pacific? If China isn't seen as a threat just what is the concern? Maybe the Royal Fijian fleet?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

31. Why would China go to war with a country that

could wipe them off the face of the earth with nuclear weapons?

[Cronkite]

42. It seems unlikely right now....

Are you prepared to say it would NEVER happen? Perhaps China was a poor example on my part. Let's look at North Korea- do you think they might be a slight threat? They are now launching missiles, have been experimenting with Nukes and have a submarine fleet.

What about other nations that don't seem to like us very much? Maybe right NOW they do not have the capability but how about ten years from now?

If we did not maintain the capability we would not have it when/if needed.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

45. We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up any country many times over.

No one is EVER going to attack us.

[HooptieWagon]

47. Really? The US was attacked only 11 years ago...

And will be again.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

48. Yeah, a lot of good those subs did us "11 years ago"

[PavePusher]

58. Various weapons have different areas of application.

You don't use a hammer to swat snakes.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

61. Take that up with the other poster. He brought that up referencing subs/911

I agree.

Come to think of it, your point is probably the point of the whole thread.

[HooptieWagon]

68. If you can accurately predict the date and nature of the next attack,

you have a bright future as a DoD consultant.
The reality is: we don't know for sure. Where will Russia be 10 years from now, if Putin stays in charge? What will happen if China continues to build up naval forces? What if N Korea figures out how to build missles that work? Waiting until the attack occurs is too late to say "Gee, lets start building submarines".
The LA boats still in service range from 16 to 31 years old. 17 of the earliest ones, built in the 70s, have already been retired. They do not have accomodations to account for woman sailors and officers. Submarines will be a part of the naval forces for the foreseeable future. Woman are going to be a part of the Navy for the foreseeable future. Bit by bit the obsolete LA boats are being replaced with modern subs. If the US were to be attacked, I don't want the Navy to have to respond using 60s technology, nor do I want them to lack enough ships or manpower.

[Sgent]

13. Because submarines

are the single most effective way to sink ships (other than *possibly* a carrier wing).

They are also the most effective way of countering other subs.

Its also the stealthiest ship in the Navy, able to do underwater insertions of Seal teams, etc.

A traditional naval war is unlikely, but certainly not impossible, and submarines are the best method of insuring sea superiority (similar to fighter aircraft). Iran, North Korea, and China have been making waves with sea operations, and the fact is that the LA class is so far ahead of its time that no one wants to give up their capabilities -- nor pay for replacements like the Seawolf.

[Lurks Often]

15. There are 52 attack subs in active service

The 42 Los Angeles, the 3 Seawolf and the 7 Virginia class, which is the class that is replacing the Los Angeles class.

Those are split between the Pacific, Indian & Atlantic Oceans (I include the Arctic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea as part of the Atlantic, since subs deployed to these 2 areas would come from the Atlantic Fleet). Of the subs, probably only 30-40% are ever at sea at once, with the remainder either: training up for the next deployment, performing post-deployment activities or in some form of routine maintenance or overhaul.

In other words, we have only 16-21 attack submarines at sea to cover the Pacific, Indian & Atlantic Oceans, really not that much when you break the numbers down.

On edit: See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/where.htm

I based my percentages of submarines deployed as being roughly the same as the carriers and their escorts.

[DainBramaged]

17. Why are we the sea police?

no one has come close to explaining why in peacetime we have billions of dollars of submarines floating around.


Especially with a Russian (and their former puppets) navy looking like this

[hack89]

46. Because the US economy depends on it?

We are absolutely dependent on the free movement of goods on the seas. The easiest way to attack the US economy would be in the Straits of Hormuz or the Straits of Malacca. Stop ships from moving freely on the oceans and our economy grinds to a stop.

[Lurks Often]

66. Many of us have explained

the need for a world wide naval presence. The military and government have to plan for worst case scenarios in both the short term and the long term. Can you predict what will happen 5 or 10 or 15 years down the road? This is the smallest navy we have had since before WWII. Like or not, we have friends and allies around the world, treaties with those friends and allies and global responsibilities which require a strong military.

[HooptieWagon]

69. We had twice as many subs pre-WW2 as now.

Granted, the modern boats can stay at sea longer, are faster, and better armed. Still, I would say we're operating the absolute minimum number.

[athenasatanjesus]

18. Because Namor is unstable.

Tho at least Aquaman isn't a threat.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. I've been railing about this forever

It really pisses me off that we have nuclear subs playing cat and mouse with simulated soviet subs like in "The Hunt For Red October".

Seriously. They're even skimming trenches like in that movie and putting the service-member's lives at risk just to play war games. People DIE in war games sometimes from equipment failure and human error. This madness needs to stop in the name of sanity.

Let's face it. Forget the money,.....it's crazy.

[Meiko]

21. They have to practice how they

are going to fight if it comes down to it. Service members are aware of the risks involved.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. Against WHO???

There is no justification for maintaining a massive submarine fleet.

Unless there's a risk of Lovecraft's R’lyeh rising and the world being overrun by fish faced folk from Innsmouth.

[Meiko]

23. The number of subs we have

could hardly be considered massive. They are delegated to many rolls, there is a lot of ocean out there. The Russians and the Chinese both have sizable sub fleets we have to be aware of as well.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. We don't need enough to fight WWIII.

As a matter of fact, it would be harder to start WWIII if we didn't have all this military crap.

[Meiko]

37. I would hardly call it crap

Our military performs many other functions than just fighting wars.Humanitarian aid comes to mind for one. I believe that one of President Obama's goals is to cut the overall size of the military so we can reduce the huge amount of spending we see now. Whether or not that will affect submarine fleet size remains to be seen. Certainly we can afford to make some cutbacks considering the current world situation.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. If we are going to do humanitarian stuff

Then we don't need the military for that. That's why Kennedy created the Peace Corps.

We could provided vaccinations for every child on the planet and it would cost less than what we spend on landmines.

[Meiko]

95. The peace corps

is not equipped to handle the kind of aid I am talking about and I think you know that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

97. It could be

if we actually shifted some of the resources from what used to be called the War Department.

The "Department of Defense" is a name that's the result of spin. The PROBLEM with it's choice of words is that it implies the need for defense at all times as if there is an ongoing threat and it has convinced a majority of the population to live in fear based on the belief that there are forces out there that we need to defend ourselves against. However if you actually ask people if they believe there is a country out there that actually could overrun us and take over the country they know there isn't. Hell, at this point, no country would even consider raising a force with that agenda. They're too busy trying to keep their employee pension plans going.

It's not like there's going to be a naval force crossing the sea to attack Pearl Harbor again.

For that matter, when the last time someone fired a torpedo at a ship like the U-boats used to do?

Don't you see that America could be more secure if people like us for our good works like building wells, giving children vaccinations and disaster response instead of acting like we will kill all who oppose us?

[Meiko]

99. So what you want is a total

disbanding of the US military and then hand over the money we used to spend on defense to third world countries to build wells and vaccinate their children.
The world is a dangerous place and there are more than a few out there who would love to see what you are suggesting but it's not going to happen. Cutting our military to the levels you are suggesting is dangerous. For one it allows these little rouge nations around the planet to do whatever they want, disrupting entire areas and killing thousands of innocent people through local wars and starvation.

The human race has not yet evolved to the point where we can disband our only means of defense.It would be suicide.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

105. LOL! Do you honestly believe some tinpot

is thinking, "Gee, I'd like to oppress my people but I'm afraid of the mighty United States Military."?

Are you kidding me?

We usually prop those guy up so they'll sign over their people as slave labor to make t-shirts.

[oneshooter]

101. The fastest way to get help to a disaster area is by sea

A carrier is a floating hospital, delivery system, and clean water source, all in one ship. Capable of being on station for months if needed.
Lets see the Peace Corps do that.

Oneshooter

[Spitfire of ATJ]

106. It could if we cared.

Just redirect the authority of ships like this from the Navy to an agency like Kucinich proposes.

The Department of Peace.

[img][/img]

As he says, the militarization of a budget leads to the militarization of thought.

[PavePusher]

60. DUzy, right there.

A. Yes, we do.

B. Not neccesarily. It depends more on who is in power and where.

[Meiko]

34. Another what?

You have a problem with me then spit it out.

[Neue Regel]

20. The same reason I have a lottery ticket in my pocket

You never know

[AsahinaKimi]

26. Are they still hunting

The Red October?

[Meiko]

36. That was a pretty good movie

did you like it?

[AsahinaKimi]

38. Yes!!

Alex Baldwin, Sean Connery, Sam Neil! (Gates McFadden, before she was famous for Star Trek: The Next Generation, did not even get mentioned in the credits, as Jack Ryan's wife.) James Earl Jones, Richard Jordan, Peter Firth, Scott Glenn, Tim Curry, and so many others! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_for_Red_October_%28film%29)

Its a video I once owned. I thought it was exceptional, and inspired me to read many more Tom Clancy books. I was also a huge fan of Harrison Ford, so, to see him play Jack Ryan was fun.

I am pretty sure that Clancy was on the other political fence, but a good drama and adventure is always exciting, if written well. Besides, politics was not as bad back then, as it is today.

[Meiko]

52. Ah yes

Gates McFadden. One of the biggest reason I watch Star Trek. From what I understand she is quite talented as a dancer and has performed in many shows. Red October had a good cast that's for sure.I think Clancy is far right of Ann Coulter but certainly is a great author.

[me b zola]

27. And women aren't allowed to serve on any of them

[rl6214]

28. Actually in 2005, the year my son graduated from the Naval Academy

There were some women assigned to the sub fleet. Just a few of them but that's a start. IIRC they only selected 10 officers coming out of the academy to be assigned to subs and two of them were women.

[Meiko]

35. Correct

They have just recently made more jobs available to women aboard subs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Wrong, women now serve on subs

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/22/women-to-begin-serving-on-u-s-submarines/

The LA Class, due to how it is built, will not see women... but both Seawolf and Virginia will

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. Excellent question for which there is no good answer. OTOH, there are many other worse wastes

within the military that I would see ended before these boats.

[HooptieWagon]

76. The LAs are late 60s design and technology.

And they don't have accomodations for women sailors and officers. There has only been 10 of the newest classes built, it looks like the newest of the LAs will be in service for another 15+ years.

[Egalitarian Thug]

83. All true. What is not usually discussed, and which applies across all of the services, is the fact

that they are still the best on earth. The individual boats are reaching or past their service life, but it does not follow that we must expend the huge resources to build the next bigger, better toy. A new Los Angeles class boat can be built for less than half the of the $2B+ cost of the Virginia class boat, and they do the job.

We are not at war. And while it is not a good idea to do nothing, it is absolutely sufficient to replace and modernize the existing platforms at least until there is a credible threat. China is not going to go to war with us because they have no motivation to do so. They are already beating us through economics. There is no credible threat in the world today including from our allies.

Accommodating female officers and crew? That just might be the furthest stretch I've read on this topic and not even worth addressing except to say that there are many solutions without building a whole new boat.

[HooptieWagon]

94. The newest LAs were built in 1996.

They will still remain in service for a while. The new classes of subs are already being built, as they go into service, the oldest LAs will be retired bit by bit. At this point, there isn't a good reason to go back to building subs that were designed in the 60s and last built 16 years ago. That would be like halting all current figjter jet constructing and saying "hey, can you guys go back to building F-4s?"

[Egalitarian Thug]

98. This post is about the attack boats and that's why I limited my comment to them. I think you missed

my point or decided to ignore it, just like the corporate welfare queens always do.

Your analogy is false* and ignores the fact that there is no need to more than double the expenditure of taxpayer dollars building unneeded submarines specifically designed for a mission that does not exist and is extremely unlikely to ever be. There is nothing wrong with the Los Angeles class platform and it is already the best boat of it's type in the world. New LA subs are completely adequate and far more cost effective.

We need some austerity at the pentagon.



*The F-4 is not adequate to fill the role. If you want get into Air Force's boondoggles, I'm more than happy to go there.

[Codeine]

40. I just love that this thread referenced not only Namor, but also R'lyeh, Innsmouth, and Deep Ones.

Sometimes DU has its moments.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. How new is the LA Class, even the newest one?

You should know though that they are actually a wrong target for your wrath... while the sub fleet is actually aging... (and pols in DC do not understand what they are used for), you have classes of ships that are currently being developed that acutally cost north of a billion (so far)... such as the Litoral class ships.

Actually, and submariners will point this out, for the tempo the Navy requires, we need at least eight more.

Now your question should be, can we afford empire? In which case, then it is not the subs that should concern you, again, how new are they? Which also, by the by, puts crews at some risk...

But at the very least, to maintain some security in the high seas and YOUR STANDARD of living, (people will get it when Empire goes away), we need five battle groups... that is carriers, destroyers and all that. Right now we have north of eleven... that is empire.

Mahan's book, even today, should be required reading for land lovers who love the idea of trade.

By the way five battle groups is not Empire... it is just maintaining sea lanes open. Eleven is Empire. If we were NOT a continental country with two major sea coasts, then you could do what oh England does... then again it is silly to buy two new Aircraft carriers, and not have planes for it... but hey, whatever trips their trigger... yup, the brits have TWO carriers that have no planes for... kind of silly to have a platform with nothing to carry, if you ask me. Now that IS a waste of money, but the MOD cannot afford the planes and the silly wabbits retired the Harrier, since those frames were a tad on the old side.

[Posteritatis]

55. The last one was launched in 1996. (nt)

[octothorpe]

59. The Brit's carriers don't really compare the USN super carriers though, do they?

Not that it makes much sense to have two carriers without planes... Are they waiting on the f35 or something?

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. They are, last story I read they could not afford them

Though for ten years iirc. Which is all kinds of funny.

[HooptieWagon]

70. A thoughtful rational post, as usual.

The most recent LA class sub was launched in the mid nineties. However, the earliest were launched in the early seventies (went into service in the mid-seventies)... so even though the newest are about 16 years old, the design and technology is from the late sixties. And, as you and others have noted, the LA class doesn't have accomodations for women sailors and officers.
How many is always going to be a debateable question. Each Carrier group is going to need 4 subs for anti-sub protection. Several subs will be needed to patrol at shipping bottlenecks... Denmark Straights, Straights of Hormuz, Black Sea straight to the Med, etc. Several subs will be needed to tail Russian and Chinese missle subs. And of course at any time, several subs will be in port for reprovisioning, repair, or overhaul. Pre-WW2 the US had about 110 subs, by my count. Currently we have 52. Although the new subs are faster and stay at sea longer, that still seems to be cutting things a bit thin.

[One_Life_To_Give]

53. History, Commerce and Economics

In this Bi-Centennial year it's most prophetic that you ask. The War of 1812 was fought over the Economic and Naval Powerhouse pushing around our merchantmen and interfering with our free trade. For thousands of years economic might and naval might have been linked. And for those reasons the US built the "Great White Fleet" and sent it on a global tour at the beginning of the 20th century.

[coalition_unwilling]

64. And 50 million Americans without access to affordable healthcare. - n/t

[HooptieWagon]

72. The lack of healthcare is NOT due to too many subs.

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 04:48 PM - Edit history (1)

It is due to congress's close ties to the health industry, and unwillingness to raise taxes even to the Reagan era levels.

[raouldukelives]

67. Because 41 wouldn't cut it.

At this point sometimes I'm just happy to see something made in America. Even if they are all only things that are ultimately going to be used to cause massive suffering to people. Good to have something to take pride in.

[stevenleser]

85. Several answers. They are a multiuse platform

1. Attack Subs are excellent platforms for inserting special forces teams undetected into dangerous places.

2. They are excellent tools to surreptitiously gather naval and other intelligence about a region of the ocean and sea

3. They are a great standoff platform from which approach undetected and launch cruise missiles against land based targets

4. They are excellent tools for blockading a port if that becomes necessary

5. They perform escort duties for carrier task forces.

6. Of course, they are a good anti-ship and anti-sub platform.

[taterguy]

91. LOL

1. Attack Subs are excellent platforms for inserting special forces teams undetected into dangerous places.

Dangerous places like land-locked areas that our current enemies prefer, since they're far away from subs?


2. They are excellent tools to surreptitiously gather naval and other intelligence about a region of the ocean and sea

So are buoys (which are a lot cheaper)

3. They are a great standoff platform from which approach undetected and launch cruise missiles against land based targets

We need 42 for that?

4. They are excellent tools for blockading a port if that becomes necessary

Destroyers are even better for that.

5. They perform escort duties for carrier task forces.

See 4

6. Of course, they are a good anti-ship and anti-sub platform.

See 3

[KatChatter]

93. LOL @#4

Destroyoer = Target

Very easy to see and track.

Sub, not easy to see nor track.

Never forget that the US Submarine Force made up less than 3% of the US Navy during WWII but sunk over 30% of the Japanese Fleet.

There are more ships and aircraft at the bottom of the oceans then submarines.

[taterguy]

100. Subs aren't very good at boarding and inspecting cargo

Takes away the whole stealth thing which is why they exist in the first place.

I'm curious about your definition of the Japanese 'Fleet.'

Is that warships or warships combined with merchant marine.

I'm too lazy to look it up but I doubt that subs sank 30% of the Japanese warships.

I'm not philosophically opposed to subs, I just think that our military procurement is based on something other than countering likely threats.

LA-class subs were very very good at tracking Soviet boomer boats. That threat doesn't really exist anymore so other tools are more appropriate for our current and foreseeable defense needs.

[stevenleser]

102. But other tools are not appropriate, because you need several different tools. Thats the point

of a multi-use platform.

Instead of procuring a half dozen different ships that are specialized, one los angeles attack sub can handle all of those duties.

[MightyOkie]

96. Think they could spare one for me? nt