"Buying the wrong submarine" Topic
1 Post
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2013) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article If snowflakes resemble snowy bees, then who rules over the snowflakes?
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
| Tango01 | 01 Oct 2022 8:43 p.m. PST |
"Nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) are technically incredible. They are akin to the Australian Navy's conventionally powered Collins Class submarines but much faster, much longer ranged and with much greater submerged endurance. However, in terms of combat systems and torpedoes, the Collins and SSNs are very similar. Both sink ships really well. By comparison, anti-ship missiles fired from aircraft, surface ships and land vehicles have small warheads and cause mission kills, that is, damages a hostile ship sufficiently that it leaves the battle for homeport and repairs. These characteristics shape South China Sea submarine operations. Retired Australian Navy Vice Admiral Mike Noonan argues that Collins submarines in having to occasionally recharge their batteries will be readily detectable in the future when operating close to China. SSNs will not be so vulnerable. The Collins submarines, being designed as part of the 1987 Defence of Australia strategy, were not intended to cruise alone near the coasts of a distant hostile superpower…" Main page
link
Armand
|
|
adds a tower to his 15mm trainyard.
