If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click On Detroit)   Newest navy subs have no periscopes. Newer fiberglass screen-doors also rust resistant   (clickondetroit.com) divider line 148
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

19359 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Oct 2004 at 8:40 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-10-24 08:47:11 AM
'Up Digital Camera' isn't quite as glamourous.
 
2004-10-24 08:49:29 AM
I was wondering when the virginia class would be ready, still, the seawolf and Los Angeles Class subs were cheaper and would be just as effective in today's world. There is never going to be a need to have sub battles, and terrorists don't have anti-sub equipment.
 
2004-10-24 08:49:47 AM
no periscopes?!

that's it... i'm not buying one then... subs are just no darn fun without the periscopes!
 
2004-10-24 08:52:31 AM
How exactly does a submarine play a vital role in the war on terrorism? Is Osama purchasing decommisioned Russian subs on the black market, now?
 
2004-10-24 08:55:46 AM
The advantage to this is, that as the digital camera technology and drone technology improves, so will the capabilities of the sub.

Right now, they are releasing floating digital cameras. Five years from now, they release a floating digital camera, then half an hour after the camera is released (and the sub is elsewhere), the camera takes off, heads inland sending back intelligence to the sub. The only weakness is in sigint...all this information is broadcast, and even if encrypted, the origin of the signal can be hunted down.

0ok
 
2004-10-24 08:57:24 AM
Let me be the first to say how proud I am of our goverments ability to waste more money.


my seamen salute you!
 
2004-10-24 08:58:25 AM
Alys

How exactly does a submarine play a vital role in the war on terrorism? Is Osama purchasing decommisioned Russian subs on the black market, now?

Because now they can sneak right up to the coast of Afghanistan...
 
2004-10-24 08:59:42 AM
Alys
How exactly does a submarine play a vital role in the war on terrorism? Is Osama purchasing decommisioned Russian subs on the black market, now?

Easypeasy.

By using the magic word 'terrah' in any article or proposal about the newest military accoutrement of any type (submarine, jeep, spoon, nucular weapon, oil well) means that there can be no objection to the purchase without being seen to be a commie liberal terrah-supporting Frenchie.

/like the idea of a digital camera instead of a periscope, though.
 
Rat
2004-10-24 09:01:25 AM
So the article says its got a crew of 130. Thats like, what, 65 couples, give or take a few since women are allowed on board now.

© going nowhere with this
 
2004-10-24 09:07:37 AM

Sic Semper Tyrannis (Latin for Thus Always To Tyrants) appear at the bottom,
which combined with the symbolism of the Commonwealths Seal,
represents the triumph of Virtue over Tyranny.
 
2004-10-24 09:08:42 AM
A sub can play a vital role Alys by not being seen. Send in a ship of special forces, they can be seen long before they hit land. Airdrop? Same thing. Today, even if a terrorist training camp is near coastal waters, those two methods are the way of getting troops in and out. You have three choices in such a situation.

1. Send in a big boat, out of sight of shore, you release a smaller boat and get your forces on land. Dangerous. Or take the big boat in sight of land but far away from the terrorists and make your boys march. Also Dangerous (and time consuming). Not to mention that someone in the country has to 'give permission' for your warship (frigate or whatever) to be in coastal waters. By the time your boys get there...the bad guys are gone.

2. Send in an air drop right on top of the bad guys. This almost guarantees casualties on your side. This is considered a bad thing. It's considered outrageously dangerous.

3. Send in an air drop a couple hours away from the bad guys. The good guys get to regroup, and pick their moment...but only AFTER they get to the bad guys.

Now you have a 4th option:
4. A sub which is designed to operate in shallow waters gets in close. It surfaces and releases the troops in dinghys. Time elapsed 5-10 minutes (and closer to five than ten). Time to shore 10 minutes max. Time to target, just seconds behind any lookout who may have seen the good guys disembark. The chances of a lookout making things more dangerous is acceptable cuz without one there is time to scout, assess, and modify plans and pick the moment. Even if there is a lookout, chances are the bad guys are NOT going to get away unscathed (as they often do with the long distance airdrops).

0ok
 
2004-10-24 09:10:11 AM
"Up skirt!"
Aye, Captain.

/confused with earlier 'optional skirt' thread.
 
2004-10-24 09:11:09 AM
Holy crap! John Wilkes Booth shouted 'Sic Semper Tyrannis' just before he shot Lincoln. Curious choice for a motto, to say the least...
 
2004-10-24 09:11:47 AM
No farking way is Sean Connery gonna say "Up, digital camera."
/wonders if we can sell our old subs to Canadian navy?
 
2004-10-24 09:12:14 AM
of all the government spending to complain about, why choose this?

the school my mom's been teaching at for the past 30 years can't afford good books for the students but they just got some really expensive looking stone art crap put by the front doors. Also, the plumbing in there is horrible, half the toilets don't flush. But... they got air conditioning installed. Did I mention the broken windows? oh, and they threatened my Mom with legal action for cleaning the muck off her own floor (since the lazy janit... er, custodial engineer, didnt)

/it's always worse when it's your mom
 
2004-10-24 09:13:29 AM
Terror, terror, so much terror. The terrorists are underwater now.
 
2004-10-24 09:14:26 AM
John Wilkes Booth shouted 'Sic Semper Tyrannis' just before he shot Lincoln.
No, he shouted it after he jumped on stage and broke his ankle.
 
2004-10-24 09:15:38 AM
Maybe he said it twice? Or maybe I am wrong...
 
2004-10-24 09:15:53 AM
Alys

This may sound far fetched, but there has been 'chatter' in regards to terrorists preying upon shipping traffic, what better way to protect our american interests than by havign a giant tubal vessel full of seamen that we can use to find a hole in the terrorist armor, and penetrate hole delivering a hot load of special forces goodness.

And while no theoretically this submarines might not have been able to stop 9/11, the terrorists have plans you haven't even heard of. How are we going to defend the fatherland without new fast-attack subs. I mean they can carry special forces ORRRR torpedos, .... What more do you want?..... Plus it can go in shallower water.

What if the terrorists have a vehicle that can carry insurgents into shallower water than our current fast attack subs can reach?

Are YOU willing to take responsibility if American lives are lost, because we don't have this sub. Haven't ENOUGH people DIED allready.

How dare you sir, HOW DARE YOU, HOW DARE YOU!!!! Imply that George, Dick, John and Donald aren't doing a good job!!!

It's just like John said, THIS is why we need the patriot act, For America-Hating, Kerry-Loving, Baby-Rapping Terrorists like you!
 
2004-10-24 09:22:39 AM
0lorin: Surely you meant baby-wrapping?
 
2004-10-24 09:22:41 AM
Baby-Rapping Terrorists

Goodness, is MC PeePants still at large?
 
2004-10-24 09:24:09 AM
I was only half joking. :P

I remember a story from a few years back, some Columbian druglord got the bright idea that it would be a lot easier to smuggle narcotics into Miami if he had his own submarine. So, he dispatched one of his minions to Russia to aquire one from their rusting navy. When the minion got to the shipyard and asked about buying one, the answer came back, "You want one with missiles, or without?"
 
2004-10-24 09:27:44 AM
ookdalibrarian

Now you have a 4th option:

Option 4 has been available for quite some time now. The VA's ability to operate in shallow water is not new. It just hasn't been a main feature on any "production" submarine.

And I don't understand your earlier comments on floating digicams. What you mention sounds, again, like something any sub can do.

This article claims that the sub has no periscope. It certainly looks like it does to me:



It's just not an optical periscope. Now it's digital, so they can locate maneuvering somewhere besides directly below the scope. I imagine they have an optical backup anyway. If the electronics fail, surfacing without being able to clear the baffles is risky.

There may be Japanese fishing boats in the area.
 
2004-10-24 09:27:46 AM
hoopycat

Well not quite, but if they got 'lil bow-wow I'd almost consider the patriot act worth it.

//there is no end to how much some little 12 y/o kid rapping about how much his car he can't drive is worth makes me want to gouge out his eyes with a rusty screw driver.
 
2004-10-24 09:29:40 AM
ookdalibrarian said:


A sub can play a vital role Alys by not being seen. Send in a ship of special forces, they can be seen long before they hit land. Airdrop? Same thing. Today, even if a terrorist training camp is near coastal waters, those two methods are the way of getting troops in and out. You have three choices in such a situation.


Look, nobody can disagree with the value of SEALs and DET-1/Force Recon guys doing submarine lockout insertions. This is an indespensable tool for hitting coastal targets with SF troops as well as ship interdictions/hostage rescue and GOPLAT operations (that's oil rig platforms for those who aren't up on MilSpeak).

Now, the Virginia class DOES add some significant SEAL delivery capabilities with it's dry dock shelter, but the TOTAL cost of this platform (development plus ship acquisition) is something in the range of US$2,000,000,000 per copy. That's right, $2 Billion bucks per ship. Now if you think that the Virginia class delivers $2B in added capability in regards to the global war on terror, your smoking something. I would say that one could accomplish the same mission by converting a few Las Angles class subs to SEAL duty or even converting an Ohio class boomer or two to a dry dock configuration.

Like in the big thread about the F-22, seeing the Virgina pisses me off in regards to the fact that Army and Marine infantrymen are dying in droves on the ground in Iraq precisely because they don't have enough men or proper equipment. One SSN-774 class sub like the USS Virginia could buy up armored vehicles, body armor, quality optics, install a new marksmanship program in the Army (your standard Army infantryman can't shoot worth a damn) and better serve our soldiers on the ground. Of course, the Navy brass doesn't give a rats ass; they just want to justify the Navy's bloated existence at a time when we are in a war on terror where the most advanced weapon wielded by our enemy is a surplus RPG.
 
2004-10-24 09:29:43 AM
They remembered Poland!
 
2004-10-24 09:29:50 AM
But I thought the best part of being a submarine commander was being able to say " Up Periscope". Now the commander will have to say " Turn On Digital Camera". It's just not the same.
 
2004-10-24 09:30:31 AM
A sub can play a vital role Alys by not being seen.

Unlike Mrs. B. J. Smegma of 13, The Cresent, Belmont.
 
2004-10-24 09:36:05 AM
I agree that it is not new...but this is the first production dedicated platform. I'm not justifying the program (although it appeals to my "neato" reflex). I think that the 10 or 20 of them being ordered is excessive. (nine, with three at sea any time seems more reasonable).

The floating digicams are now available on all submarines. But there is space in the Virginia to add a couple of consoles to allow drone craft cameras to be controlled.

Hey, it's early sunday morning, and my posts are long enough without being too detailed.

0ok
 
2004-10-24 09:40:10 AM
I hope for the sake of the US navy that the subs are built on Non-Flammable materials.

Not like those cheap UK subs the Canadians bought.
 
2004-10-24 09:41:34 AM
The $2.2 billion, nuclear-powered USS Virginia differs from other submarines because it can not only roam the deep blue ocean but also get close to shore in shallow water, which Navy officials say is important in fighting terrorism.

Maybe the terrorists' parents only let them go in the shallow end?
 
PTK
2004-10-24 09:42:57 AM
dr-shotgun: it goes back to the cool new toy effect. Stryker, JSF, F22, and the Virginia. JSF and the F22(to an extent), I see the reasoning. Virginia, not so much. No comment on the Stryker
 
2004-10-24 09:44:39 AM
farktimenow-

Yes, but now that can simply say "On Screen."

In my brain, that's more awesome then "Up Parascope!"
 
2004-10-24 09:46:34 AM
Holy crap! John Wilkes Booth shouted 'Sic Semper Tyrannis' just before he shot Lincoln. Curious choice for a motto, to say the least...

"Sic semper Tyrannis" happens to be the state motto of Virginia. Y'know, the state (actually Commonwealth) the sub is named after. Not so curious.

As to worth versus the LA class, do you realize how old those LA's were? Sure, she was a badass boat when she was brought out in the 80's, but she's long in the tooth. Lack of sub opposition and possibilities of sub duel may make the advances in the Virginia seem superfluous, but, frankly, there is only one way to remain on top - never faltering.

In the case of the LA's, they are reaching the end of their service life. Subs experince far different stressors than surface ships, and are inherently more dangerous to the crew if something goes wrong. Personally, if we need to start retiring LA's simply because they're old, why would we not take the oppurtunity to upgrade before we're forced to?

Another problem here is perception. The Navy is seen as having this massive bloated budget. Part of that is unit cost. The Army and Marines have nothing the approaches the cost of this sub. Never will. It is not because they're underfunded, it is simply because they're style of warfare does not demand such a concentration of expense in one spot.

That said, I would certainly not argue with more funding for the Army. The US Army has the least glorious task allotted to any of the five branches (yes, I include the Coast Guard), and the one that is most dangerous long-term - holding ground after it is taken. The Army used to take ground like crazy, and still does, but modern warfare tends to spearhead groundgrabs with the Marines, thus they get the "glory" there. The Army is left literally holding the bag and soaking up the casualties that result from being unable to maneuver much. Nothing glorious about that.

Still, I want to make damned certain we are on top in certain areas - comms, subs, airpower, armour, and most importantly logistics. Infantry is infantry, and all the money in the world will not change their capabilities radically (even Landwarrior). Money means tech, and tech can change the capabilities of those involves in the areas mentioned above.
 
2004-10-24 10:00:55 AM
Cool, I hadn't heard about the demise of the periscope. I found a good article at howstuffworks.com.
 
2004-10-24 10:04:39 AM
08:49:29 AM blindeye01: There is never going to be a need to have sub battles, and terrorists don't have anti-sub equipment.

'Never' is a long time. China is developing fast, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them with a decent deep ocean submarine fleet in twenty years or so. If they're inclined to use it, the best defense against a sub is another sub, so we'd better have some modern ones.
 
2004-10-24 10:06:17 AM
Using a a submarine to fight terrorists is like trying to kill a bee with a bulldozer.

It's completely inappropriate. The military is a very blunt tool used to take on countries.

That's OK though right, this is not about terrorists, but about building the military industrial complex. So let's just keep on spending!! woooohoooo!
 
2004-10-24 10:09:29 AM
Petit_Merdeux
This article claims that the sub has no periscope. It certainly looks like it does to me:...It's just not an optical periscope. Now it's digital

Noooo. By definition, a periscope IS optical. There is no such thing as a digital periscope. A camera on top of a mast relaying information via cable is no longer a periscope. It is a camera on top of a mast.
 
2004-10-24 10:14:19 AM
in case you were confused:

Periscope: Any of various tubular optical instruments that contain reflecting elements, such as mirrors and prisms, to permit observation from a position displaced from a direct line of sight.
 
2004-10-24 10:22:32 AM
Truth be told, a lot of us who rant about stupid military gear have had to eat a bunch of crow in regards to the Stryker.

It DOES NOT meet the mission requirements that were outlined for it- it cannot be transported by a C-130 into forward areas, it is relatively weakly armored against the higher quality RPGs and it does not have the maneuverability required for places like Somalia. Furthermore, the cannon variant simply does not work (without either blowing over or frying any soldiers within 50' of the muzzle). In short, the Stryker does NOT meet the goal for which it was envisioned.

(For note: the Stryker was brought about after conflicts like Kosovo and Somalia when it was envisioned that the US Army would be often deployed as a peacekeeping force to absolute third world spots. It is an 8 wheeled armored vehicle that was designed to give US soldiers an edge in urban combat. By design, a C-130 aircraft was supposed to be able to carry one deep into the heart of the conflict and then allow US troops to fight indiginous forces with a massive edge. It does not meet these goals very well.)

Having said that, the Stryker has been great in Iraq. The more open streets of Iraqi cities combined with the lack of up-armored HMMWVs has translated into a big win for the Stryker. Furthermore, the RPGs we're getting hit with are not the advanced late Russian variety and the improvised explosive devices blowing up thin skinned trucks and HMMWVs aren't doing much damage to the Stryker. For what it was designed for, it is a crappy weapon system, but for Iraq, being in a Stryker is an e-ticket ride.
 
2004-10-24 10:25:11 AM
Zaago

There is no such thing as a digital periscope.

There is now!

;)

I figured that would be the case. I was too lazy to look up the definition. Anyway, I think it;s arguing semantics.
 
2004-10-24 10:26:07 AM
If we don't build new subs the turrists have already WON!

I am really liking the idea of premptive war...since... some day... I might get glaucoma. I have decided to take my war on glaucoma pre-emptive!
 
2004-10-24 10:32:26 AM
Petit_Merdeux

Excellent point. Still, it is a big step given that the con no longer need be located directly beneath the camera.
 
2004-10-24 10:45:33 AM
In his keynote address, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said the Virginia will help lead the fight against terrorism.

What a pitiful, insulting attempt to hide a $2.2 billion pork barrel project. How exactly is a submarine going to help us patrol the streets of Iraq or the hills of Afghanistan? Total waste of money.
 
2004-10-24 10:47:29 AM
dr-shotgun, outstanding point. How many people said 'it's too heavy, just get a LAV-25 or something already out there', and wouldn't you know it, the troops love the Strykers.

For all the bashing the press likes to inflict on our procurement process, we do tend to put farking kick-butt gear on the field...
 
2004-10-24 11:02:55 AM
Joke/

How do you tell if you're dealing with a gay whale?

He bites the heads off submarines, and sucks out all the seamen.

/rimshot
Thanks try the veal...
 
2004-10-24 11:09:42 AM
But the real advantage is now we have something with which to fight the evil synchronized swimmers!
 
2004-10-24 11:12:59 AM
Alys How exactly does a submarine play a vital role in the war on terrorism?

I'll just add this to what other people have said: A sub can follow a ship without being seen. Aircraft and surface ships can be seen. Satellites can't follow it 24/7. Imagine you find out that a weapon or a terrorist or something is on a particular ship. Rather than just board the ship right away, you could follow it to see where it's going and probably nab even more bad guys. It sounds to me like a smart thing to do.

That said, do we need a brand new sub? No. We could use older ones. But hopefully (and I don't know this to be true) this one is smaller and cheaper to operate. So, hopefully we can get rid of a big expensive boat that was designed to hunt other subs.
 
2004-10-24 11:17:53 AM
I have to congratulate the designers of this thing for adapting the sub to a new role. What they've done is smart. Hopefully, what it will get used for will also be smart.

Please can the Canadian Navy borrow your sub designers?
 
2004-10-24 11:32:58 AM
Zaago,

Noooo. By definition, a periscope IS optical. There is no such thing as a digital periscope. A camera on top of a mast relaying information via cable is no longer a periscope. It is a camera on top of a mast.

i'd have to double check on Virginia, but digital imaging on the LA class periscopes retain all the optics, the camera isn't at the top of the mast
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report