Naval Defence
-
Actually, I would say nothing beats using an Alpha-Strike on a naval fleet. Muahahaha...
-
Because of the fact that it is much harder to track stuff underwater, a much smaller (submarine) force can effectively deter a much larger Naval force from entering an area. The PRC showed that themselves with their stalking of a USN battle group. No sane navy will risk entering an area with hostile naval submarines unless their own submarines have thoroughly 'deloused' the area. It's a quick way to lose lots of men and money
-
Depends actually. Our kinda submarines aren't fleet killers. So far, I think only a few submarines in the world can qualify as a fleet killer. That would be a Seawolf or Akula 2.
-
2.how do u define fleet killer?Originally posted by Shotgun:Depends actually. Our kinda submarines aren't fleet killers. So far, I think only a few submarines in the world can qualify as a fleet killer. That would be a Seawolf or Akula 2. -
it kills fleet.
-
Its not a definition. Its the inherent potential capability. A single Seawolf can have 8 Torpedoes in the water at one time, while retaining the capability to guide them.Originally posted by lionnoisy:2.how do u define fleet killer?
The Akula 2 has 10.
A single volley has the potential to cripple a surface task force.
Most attack submarines have an average of 4 torpedo tubes. -
Regarding the PRC stunt on the USN battle group......I would'nt say it's a success by the PRC sub. But rather, if you want your opponent to think his subs can penetrate your screen in a peacetime environment, knowing that your opponent won't dare fire a torp or missile at your carrier lest he wants to trigger an annihilation process on his homeland, you would let his sub in....so he thinks he has the capability to do it in wartime environment too....and become overconfident of his abilities......Originally posted by edwin3060:Because of the fact that it is much harder to track stuff underwater, a much smaller (submarine) force can effectively deter a much larger Naval force from entering an area. The PRC showed that themselves with their stalking of a USN battle group. No sane navy will risk entering an area with hostile naval submarines unless their own submarines have thoroughly 'deloused' the area. It's a quick way to lose lots of men and money
I believe the penetration by the PRC sub is just a ploy by the USN allow PLAN to think they can penetrate USN screens and also a ploy to get more funding to kick a bigger a s s from further afield than what the USN is currently capable of....which in my opinion is already very impressive as compared to what its' opponents can dish out....hmmmm.. -
you know i dont want to debunk this theory that the US Navy intentionally allowed the PLAN sub to enter CBVG screen.
rather i m going to give you a precedence....IF THE USNAVY NEVER ALLOWED THE RUSSIAN TO DO THAT ...YOU CAN BET YOUR FANNIES THEY WONT EVER ALLOWED THE PLA-N TO DO IT EITHER! AND YOU CAN BET FOR SURE THE CREW OF THAT SUB WILL GET MEDALS, LAND AND MONEY FOR THAT FEAT!
this theory that the us navy intentionally alowed the sub to enter its security buffer is the effort by the new pentagon propaganda department (what the heck is it name anyway?) to reduce the embarassment. -
Originally posted by FireAndHell:Regarding the PRC stunt on the USN battle group......I would'nt say it's a success by the PRC sub. But rather, if you want your opponent to think his subs can penetrate your screen in a peacetime environment, knowing that your opponent won't dare fire a torp or missile at your carrier lest he wants to trigger an annihilation process on his homeland, you would let his sub in....so he thinks he has the capability to do it in wartime environment too....and become overconfident of his abilities......
I believe the penetration by the PRC sub is just a ploy by the USN allow PLAN to think they can penetrate USN screens and also a ploy to get more funding to kick a bigger a s s from further afield than what the USN is currently capable of....which in my opinion is already very impressive as compared to what its' opponents can dish out....hmmmm..
like telling your wife you fell into the drain by accident when you got bruises all over your body. all trick already. next time just pay up when you visit the pros. -
Yes, I will bet my fannies.......heheh..you can't compare the capabilities of the old USSR navy during the Cold war to the current peaceful situation when PLAN sneaked into the net, can u? During the Cold War with the USSR, such provocation or stunts can ignite an explosive WW3 with losers on both sides...Originally posted by tankfanatic:you know i dont want to debunk this theory that the US Navy intentionally allowed the PLAN sub to enter CBVG screen.
rather i m going to give you a precedence....IF THE USNAVY NEVER ALLOWED THE RUSSIAN TO DO THAT ...YOU CAN BET YOUR FANNIES THEY WONT EVER ALLOWED THE PLA-N TO DO IT EITHER! AND YOU CAN BET FOR SURE THE CREW OF THAT SUB WILL GET MEDALS, LAND AND MONEY FOR THAT FEAT!
this theory that the us navy intentionally alowed the sub to enter its security buffer is the effort by the new pentagon propaganda department (what the heck is it name anyway?) to reduce the embarassment.
During these peacetime environment, and with PLAN expanding, it would'nt hurt to let PLAN think they can penetrate USN net.....bear in mind ....overconfidence in your military's ability can backfire dearly..
Also, it may benefit USN much to be able to clearly ID the acoustic sounds of PLAN quietest subs. Once that is done, do you seriously believe PLAN's subs can do the same stunt in the event of a hostile environment....
This I will bet my fannies that it will not happen......hehehehe
And, there is so much propaganda on both sides.....even more on the US side....it sure will be a plus for the USN to claim that their ability has been compromised..........so I say.....if your current abilities su..cks .....do you want to let your future adversery know you s..u..c..k?? Or would you rather make your future adversery feel that they have the upper hand??