- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #281
by the time no 12 came on line the 1st in class would be well on the way to 2nd deep maint cycle
Submarine news
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
- Status
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
If there's a will, there is a way. Roads & shelters could be built, missile defenses deployed, & agreements signed. "..parking missiles on platforms that are out of sight and mind works better than a rail network or whatever." Yes, it's less than ideal, but from the locations I suggested the BMs won't need to have as long range as in Montana & therefore cheaper. OTH, the USN could save $Bs already by reducing SSBN force to 8 from 14- their current numbers are due to its desire to keep 4 (2 in Atlantic + 2 in Pacific) on stations at all times. The 6 freed boomers could then be converted to SSGNs, adding an equivalent of ~18 SSNs in firepower. The tactical nukes placed on SSNs/SSGNs wouldn't be strategic but if the goal is to save $, it would be a better solution than giving Virginia V class a strategic role.
t68
Well-Known Member
Your showing possabile benifits to the US, but where are the benifits to Australia, and who pays for all the new infrastructure dealing with nuclear weapons when the basic infrasture is a source of contension just for toilet blocks to be built.
No Cookies | Daily Telegraph
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
The Chinese & Russians use their self contained road mobile IC/RBMs in the countryside for days & weeks at a time just like a travel trailer can be as far as toilets, sleeping & eating are concerned. Not a vacation, but the military life was never meant to be a picnic!
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Like T68 states, there is no point in making yourself a target and paying for infrastructure that this stuff requires. If you don't control these weapons there is no benefit.
I am not sure what alternate universe you live in but it sure as hell is not this one. What benefit is there to making Australia a definite target as part of a first strike by having weapons on your land that will be targeted ....... not only that, weapons you have no control over.
Not even the most extream military minded individual would agree to that. It is utter nonsense and well off topic. Enough knowledgeable posters have pour cold water over this yet you persist. Australia looked a nuclear weapons and power in the 50's but did not go ahead. We cannot even get agreement on nuclear power here and to allow nuclear weapons to be stationed in th is country would be a career limiting move for any prime minister.
Suggest you drop it........... as, to be honest, it is getting beyond irritating.
Feel free to be offended.
You do realise that when you suddenly have a couple or even dozens of new roads appear for no economic reason its pretty obvious that that's where to concentrate your search for the TELs? Can't see them, easy just lob a warhead at each of the likely locations highlighted by the brand new roads to nowhere and destroy huge tracts of the Australian continent, not just the land, but contaminate the subterranean water basins that virtually the entire interior relies upon fo water.
Then there's the cost. Fifteen or so years ago, when I was doing my NATA training, the lecturer pointed out that each kilometre of highway cost an average of $1 million, assuming there wasn't too much preparatory earth works required. It could be assumed the price now would be substantially higher and that the remoteness of where the roads are proposing will be will make the price even higher. Also its not just desert out there, with regular floods doing major damage to the existing roads creating a road maintenance nightmare. How many tens of thousands of kilometres of new roads would be required to make the idea viable? I can see it wouldn't take that long for the cost of building and maintaining the roads, in just central Australia, will make SSBNs the cheaper, more secure and more sustainable option.
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
Thanks for that! I'm not categorical about Australia, not big deal for me if it's a bad option for political, etc. reasons. But the TELs don't need good roads. Alaska already has BMD & plenty of underpopulated space to hide in. The terrain there is similar to N.Russia & Siberia. If the RF didn't have those and planned BM trains, their SSB/GN force would have to be bigger for which there's no $ to spare.
Have you ever driven off road in central Australia? Its not uncommon for people attempting that to die. Your posts remind me of a story years ago about an American couple who came to Australia on holiday and wanted to hire a float plane to tour the great lakes they had seen on the maps. They are actually salt flats surrounded by some of the most inhospitable terrain in the world.
Again, even moving off road, logistics are the killer. The amount of support you would need would make it easier to find and destroy the TELs as well as increasing costs. There are reasons SSBNs have been the preferred option by most nuclear powers for decades and those that have opted for distributed TELs do so because of technological limitations of their submarines vs those who rely predominantly on subs.
That's EXACTLY what I said, but it was in response to your post which infers the opposite
I am not a long term member of this forum with deep inside knowledge as some, yourself included, but don't much enjoy being treated as if *I* was the source of bad information
oldsig
oldsig
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #291
wasn't my intent, so not sure why you've taken a view that I'm broadsiding at you.
if anything I'm reiterating and reinforcing
t68
Well-Known Member
Ha that reminds me of the German couple caught doing 140 down the M1 at Cooomera QLD a few years ago,thought the conditions were like the Autobahn and we're going to Melbourne for the day because it didn't look far on the map
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #293
completely off topic
a few years ago I was tasked with where to put all the bodies in a new building. so it was the usual open air plan etc...
one of the snr staff was an absolute cow and status conscious. she'd breathe over my shoulder and was determined to get her prime spot near a window looking over Darling Harbour.
she repeatedly insisted that she wanted to have the spot where there was a big round table. and I repeatedly told her that she couldn't have it as it was not suitable for use. she screamed, abused, ranted and carried on to such an extent that I made her write an email reinforcing that said circle marked on the drawings was her workstation and that she was aware that I couldn't release it to staff but that she had ignored my advise accordingly etc... and that any future dealings re allocation of said space was to be between her and the facilities manager as she no longer wanted me involved. The facilities manager wrote back to her and said that if she insisted on having that spot then they would release it to her and promptly allocated a desk asset number. She was beside herself with joy that she had beaten me and "got her way"
you can imagine her surprise when she rolled up a month later and discovered that her round desk was a concrete column - floor to ceiling
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #294
I realise I'm the last offender, but time to get back on topic
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Ok, getting back to my earlier post about the link suggesting Virginia subs equipped with modified VPMs for BMs, Colay1 suggested boomers have a different operational mode, dive and hide at a more or less constant depth as opposed to attack subs which have more varied operational profiles that reduce shelf life. Thoughts? I have to admit once again that 100 billion buys a shitload of proven subs with the VPM option.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Oh, forgot to emphasize the Virginia program is the best current naval procurement program on the planet.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #297
yep, the fundamental CONOPs for both types are inherently different - outside of the need to universally run silent, run deep, make life hard for red team once they clear safe harbour.
that doesn't mean that a virginia with a different weapons package wouldn't be able to behave differently.
but its a different training and fighting paradigm if thats the case
The first boomers were Skipjacks with a missile section, actually the Resolutions were too, Valiant (Churchills?) with a missile plug. The flipside is the Astutes apparently have a fair bit of Vanguard DNA.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I believe the Virginia budget currently allows for 48 boats, a number some claim is too small. The minimum Columbia budget is 100 billion which should allow another 25-30 addtional Virginias with VPM, maybe more if production costs are lessened by an increased build number. There would likely be money left over for training addtional crews for boomer operations.
Tsavo Lion
Banned Member
Welcome to America’s ‘Nuclear Sponge’
I agree with the author, he points out the risks & costs of having stationary ICBMs. I would also add that China & N.Korea could also hit those but wouldn't unless we attack them 1st, or if they think we did or in the process of doing so. OTH, the ICBM & SSBN forces' costs must also include the TACAMO E-6B fleet & its components. Besides, the SSBN bases could also be attacked, killing many civilians nearby. They are big stationary targets just like the ICBMs in the article above. So, it makes even more sense to reduce the boomer fleet & convert the surplus subs to SSGNs. I would like to be proven wrong by someone who knows more, so please, enlighten me!
I agree with the author, he points out the risks & costs of having stationary ICBMs. I would also add that China & N.Korea could also hit those but wouldn't unless we attack them 1st, or if they think we did or in the process of doing so. OTH, the ICBM & SSBN forces' costs must also include the TACAMO E-6B fleet & its components. Besides, the SSBN bases could also be attacked, killing many civilians nearby. They are big stationary targets just like the ICBMs in the article above. So, it makes even more sense to reduce the boomer fleet & convert the surplus subs to SSGNs. I would like to be proven wrong by someone who knows more, so please, enlighten me!
- Status