I would put my money on Seawolf.
Virginia was designed as a cheaper alternative to Sea Wolf , infact Sea Wolf is faster , more equiped , and more quiet.
Nuclear Subs
- Thread starter Jade
- Start date
I would put my money on Seawolf.
Virginia was designed as a cheaper alternative to Sea Wolf , infact Sea Wolf is faster , more equiped , and more quiet.
im not at all defensive...its called objectivity.and having the highest budget doesnt automatically result in the best platform or design.sometimes money keeps being ploughed into a poor design just because its available instead of thinking laterally with less dosh!
and ozzy,i dont wish to be rude but could you utilise your spell checker as your spelling detracts from your obvious knowledge in your posts
cheers.
I don't think that the Saudis would provide Pakistan funding if the Taliban took over there. That would be funding a terrorist state. The U.S. and others wouldn't just sit their and watch terrorists get hi-tech, expensive submarines. They would do something about it. The Saudis are close allies of the U.S. and I really don't think they would fund a terrorist state. If they did the U.S. and Europe would also put an arms embargo on them witch they wouldn't like either.
And by the way Izzy, I do know that the Saudis are the bank for Muslim countries that aren't that rich. But after all the U.S. has done to stop terrorists and extremists, I don't think the Saudis would fund Pakistan's new submarines.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know all that. I'm not a fool. My question was would you rather put your money on Seawolf or Virginia.
They funded the nuclear weapons program when the country was run by a government or dictator. Not Taliban militants. There was already enough suspition about there nuke program under a stable government. I don't think they would let anyone fund a terrorist's NUCLEAR weapons.
Again, I really DO NOT THINK the Saudis would fund Pakistani weapons if the country was run by terrorists. They should have some sense in them, or do they not have any at all. I have full confidence that the will remember the terrorist strikes on their country and think differently. Pakistan's nuclear weapons don't help stability in an already dangerous part of the world. And the fact Pakistan has had how many military coups? does not make anyone feel good when they learn such an unstable country has nuclear weapons. Lets not even discuss the oil.
I meant I knew one was designed for the cold war and the other was designed for the coastel regions to support operations against terrorists. I was just really trying to figure out how much more advanced Virginia was than Seawolf
I thanked you for your effort in resoponding. All you did was tell me how they were different and why they were built. Not which one you would think is better for a Hunter Killer Mission.
Anyways, lets stop argueing with each other so much.
Last edited by a moderator:
What?!!! As opposed to a military Junta who is backed by a state intelligence organisation that actually nurtured the Taliban threat in the first place! Again, please get real.
Don't even go there - for a start I'm British, not Saudi. READ and inform yourself before you assume - it's something you clearly need to do a lot of considering the amount of people you seem to p**s off here on DT.
In all fairness, nuclear weapons and the threat of escalation stopped the last confrontation between India and Pakistan over Kashmire several years ago.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #69
O.K.
1) I hear the Astute's propulsion makes it quieter than a baby Dolphin !!
So, how can you detect it ?
2) The Astute's speed is 20 knots, so for it's size it's the fastest sub as well !!!
3) So, if Subs are undetectable, then who is to say whose nuclear missile targeted this or that country ?
This could mean total confusion and total war - as Castro said !?
Can anyone answer that pls ?
1) I hear the Astute's propulsion makes it quieter than a baby Dolphin !!
So, how can you detect it ?
2) The Astute's speed is 20 knots, so for it's size it's the fastest sub as well !!!
3) So, if Subs are undetectable, then who is to say whose nuclear missile targeted this or that country ?
This could mean total confusion and total war - as Castro said !?
Can anyone answer that pls ?
I understand that nukes prevented India from attacking Pakistan but still. Thats a dangerous part of the world. And another countries acquiring of nukes doesn't help.
1) Might be true not sure though
2) You could detect it the way you detect other subs. Dipping sonar from a helicopter, active or passive sonar as well. It would be harder to detect if it is that quiet though.
3) They're not "undetectable" but are hard to detect. People really don't know who targets their missiles at who. But you could kind of figure/guess. During the Cold War it would be obvious that the USSR and U.S. targeted missiles at each other. I wouldn't be surprised if China targeted its missiles at the U.S. and Taiwan. But anyhow it doesn't take long to retarget or target a missile. A few flicks of the switch and there you have it.
4) Its not that far fetched a war could start by complete accident. If a country was test launching another potential "enemy" of that country would think they were launching and launch back.
Glad we are in agreement. Once again, I'm sorry about my previous comment. I edited the comment.For once, I couldn't agree more
Thank you for forgiving me. I will watch my tounge. ( I hate being offended in another language, especially when I don't understand!)
Jane's Fighting Ships certainly contains details on all the World's current submarines. Yet, it does not go into detail very much - mainly given to the fact that it is such a large piece of work and there is only so much space available.
Personally, I don't think you can go far wrong with www.globalsecurity.org It may not be bang up-to-date, but its very close, well sourced and completely free.
Personally, I don't think you can go far wrong with www.globalsecurity.org It may not be bang up-to-date, but its very close, well sourced and completely free.