Military Thread

The rules: No spamming, no making a nuisance of yourself.

Moderators: chijohnaok, Kameolontti

Message
Author
User avatar
abradley
buck private
Posts: 16730
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:01 am

Re: Military Thread

#401 Post by abradley » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:42 pm

Posted by Keld Denar
+3 Girlfriend is totally unoptimized. You are better off with a +1 Keen Witty girlfriend and then appling Greater Magic Make-up to increase her enhancement bonus.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthre ... D-2-5-What

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38136
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Military Thread

#402 Post by chijohnaok » Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:07 pm

https://warisboring.com/indopacom-chief ... perations/
INDOPACOM chief: Sub shortfall in Pacific poses threat to daily operations

March 29, 2019 Wyatt Olson

Wyatt Olson
Stars and Stripes

The Navy has half the submarines it needs to patrol the Pacific as it keeps tabs on undersea competitors such as China and Russia, the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said Wednesday.

“My day-to-day requirement is met by slightly over 50 percent of what I ask for,” Adm. Philip Davidson told the House Armed Services Committee during a hearing.

“The capacity limitations as we go down over the course of the next several years is indeed a threat to day-to-day operations that I think we need to have in the theater,” he said.


The Navy’s submarine shortage is an ongoing problem. Davidson’s predecessor, Adm. Harry Harris, bemoaned the shortfall two years ago.

“The numbers are low and getting smaller,” Harris told the same committee in April 2017, when the Navy’s entire attack sub fleet of 52 was projected to shrink to 42 by 2026. That number today is 51.

Davidson said it is “a critical need” in the Pacific “to reverse the trend on our way to a force structure of 42 in a 2026 timeframe.”

“The number of submarines is an area in which we hold an asymmetrical advantage over virtually, well, all our adversaries,” he said. “It’s a critical advantage that we need to extend.”

In his written testimony, Davidson said that of the 400 foreign submarines operating the world, 75 percent of them are in the Indo-Pacific region.

China, Russia and North Korea alone operate 160 of them, and as they continue to increase their sub capacity, the U.S. is retiring such vessels faster than they are replaced, he said.

“Potential adversary submarine activity has tripled from 2008 levels, which requires at least a corresponding increase on the part of the United States to maintain superiority,” he said.

———

©2019 the Stars and Stripes

Visit the Stars and Stripes at http://www.stripes.com
Composition of the current force
Los Angeles class (32 in commission, 2 in reserve) – attack submarines
Ohio class (18 in commission) – 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)
Seawolf class (3 in commission) – attack submarines
Virginia class (15 in commission, 1 delivered, 1 fitting out, 9 under construction, 2 on order) – fast attack submarines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine ... rent_force

The US Navy is only building 1 to 2 of the Virginia-class attack submarines, which are replacing the Los Angeles class attack subs as they are retired.

Sounds like the US could use some more attack submarines.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

wulfir
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 4803
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Military Thread

#403 Post by wulfir » Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:26 pm

Subs are expensive. Maybe Australia should field those extra subs needed to patrol the Pacific?

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38136
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Military Thread

#404 Post by chijohnaok » Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:04 pm

wulfir wrote:Subs are expensive. Maybe Australia should field those extra subs needed to patrol the Pacific?
I can't remember specifically where I read it (perhaps you noticed it in something that I linked) but I read the suggestion somewhere that Australia should purchase (or maybe have built or license the building of) a dozen or so Virginia-class subs from the US.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

wulfir
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 4803
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: Military Thread

#405 Post by wulfir » Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:34 am

chijohnaok wrote:
wulfir wrote:Subs are expensive. Maybe Australia should field those extra subs needed to patrol the Pacific?
I can't remember specifically where I read it (perhaps you noticed it in something that I linked) but I read the suggestion somewhere that Australia should purchase (or maybe have built or license the building of) a dozen or so Virginia-class subs from the US.
Australia is buying a dozen subs from the French...

https://www.dw.com/en/australia-signs-m ... a-47453125

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38136
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Military Thread

#406 Post by chijohnaok » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:50 am

Thanks for that post Wulfir.

It will be interesting to see what sort of issues the Aussies (and Their French partners) may run into with taking a submarine that was designed to run on nuclear power, and cramming a Diesel engine into it.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

jack t ripper
Sergeant Major
Posts: 32872
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Military Thread

#407 Post by jack t ripper » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:56 am

Why would you chose a less-capable option requiring a massive retrofit?

French and US and British nuclear subs have good safety records.
Strong supporter of global warming as I have invested in speculative vineyard properties around Nome

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38136
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Military Thread

#408 Post by chijohnaok » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:01 am

jack t ripper wrote:Why would you chose a less-capable option requiring a massive retrofit?

French and US and British nuclear subs have good safety records.
Apparently, the Aussies suffer from the same illness that their Kiwi cousins suffer from...they are allergic to nuclear powered ships.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Anthropoid
Sergeant Major
Posts: 16787
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: marching home to [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzVYCs4BMY]Erica[/url]

Re: Military Thread

#409 Post by Anthropoid » Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:41 am

Fucking idiots abound . . .

jwilkerson
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12508
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Military Thread

#410 Post by jwilkerson » Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:47 am

Image

Offutt Airforce Base in NE, undergoing conversion to a Navy base ...

(Offutt was the hindquarters of SAC in it's glory days)
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!

Post Reply