"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.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2015) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article The first of a series of reports from sargonII, who is currently traveling in the Middle East.
Current Poll
|
| Tango01 | 01 Oct 2022 9:43 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
|
|
