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 11:36:23 AM
even if it's not a true periscope, it's still goign to be called a periscope. honestly, I'm surprised this wasn't done years ago.
 
2004-10-24 11:36:37 AM
2004-10-24 10:04:39 AM jjorsett
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.


actually, Russia has torpedo technology that not only do we currently not have, but we don't have countermeasures for either.
 
2004-10-24 11:44:36 AM
thornhill


Obviously, a machine can't lead the fight against anything. Only people can provide leadership.


Having said this, there has long been a shortage of submarines capable of performing intellegence gathering missions. The subs that are best suited for this activity are capable of shallow water operations, hosting special forces, and carrying mini-subs etc. (Just like this sub.)


If you do some googling on this topic you will see that this sub meets some long standing military needs, even if it is fashionable among politicians to tie everything to the war on terror.


By the way, do you remember the French oil tanker that was hit by terrorists off the coast of Yemen a while back? This type of sub will probably be used to gather intellegence, and perhaps launch special forces attacks against terrorists operating in coastal waters. Those terrorists probably made many practice runs in the area prior to the attack, and others are probably still operating in those waters.

 
2004-10-24 11:44:52 AM
Notch_Johnson
actually, Russia has torpedo technology that not only do we currently not have, but we don't have countermeasures for either.

Agreed...

If the reports from the divers are accurate, I have a strong suspicion that is what sank the Kursk.
 
2004-10-24 11:49:13 AM
Maybe someone familiar with things can help me figure this out:

"The sub is the first of 10 Virginia-class submarines scheduled to be built through a partnership between Northrop Grumman Newport News and General Dynamics Electric Boat."

but then

"First lady Laura Bush christened the USS Texas, the second sub in the class, at the Newport News shipyard in July."

How is this the first and the one christened in July was the second??
 
2004-10-24 11:54:18 AM
i dont believe Texas is even finished yet. Virginia wasnt even in sea trials in July
 
2004-10-24 12:03:29 PM
Ships are christened at a certain point during the build phase. It happens way before launch.
 
2004-10-24 12:04:31 PM
But I thought ships/subs were not christened until they were launched....
 
2004-10-24 12:06:08 PM
...get close to shore in shallow water, which Navy officials say is important in fighting terrorism.

In his keynote address, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said the Virginia will help lead the fight against terrorism.





Damn that bastage Bush. He is starting to get tough on terrorism. I must now move my operations from the beach to some place inland.

Seriously, how did these buffoons not get laughed at with this shiat. Unbefreekinlievable! I've heard some completely assinine budget justifications before but this gets into a new area of insultation. You'd have to be a Bush supporter to buy into this crap.

As if we needed another Big Red Flag that this country is on totally the wrong track in finding terrorists.
 
2004-10-24 12:11:52 PM
moonduck
Ships are christened at a certain point during the build phase. It happens way before launch.

Are Islamic ships Mohammedened?
 
2004-10-24 12:15:35 PM
2004-10-24 12:03:29 PM moonduck
Ships are christened at a certain point during the build phase. It happens way before launch.


you're right, i read that as as commissioning.
 
2004-10-24 12:19:13 PM
As long as they have fire extinguishers they'll be one up on the Canadian navy.....
 
2004-10-24 12:24:06 PM
This shiat shouldn't be working in America today because people aren't as farking stupid as they were 20 years ago. Right?

The fact is, the same motherfarkers that were wasting OUR money in the 1970s and 80s are still doing it. The difference is that the 70s had a lot of dipshiat stupid people in the mainstream. Those people have now died off or got hooked on crack. Now, whenever they want to take from us and give to Boeing or General Dynamics, or whoever, they just say "Hey, the security moms say this will protect us from terrorists."

We have security moms to blame for this. fark you, security mom.
 
2004-10-24 12:32:19 PM
BearToy Seriously, how did these buffoons not get laughed at with this shiat.

I'm sure they get laughed at by people like you. But your comments aren't particularly intelligent or articulate. Hell, you don't even put question marks at the end of questions! I suspect that you're fairly ignorant on the issue and that therefore the rest of us shouldn't be particularly concerned with your opinion.

However, I will just point out that the contract to build this ship was assigned on 30 September 1998, while Bill Clinton was president. Her keel was laid down on 2 September 1999, while Bill Clinton was president.

Why are you so critical of what Bill Clinton did as commander and chief?
 
2004-10-24 12:33:07 PM
Another justification that I have heard is that the Virginia class subs can be used to combat the Chinese diesel electric subs. These subs operate in brown water (coastal areas with a depth of 200 feet and above), and are extremely quiet. More quiet than a nuclear sub when they are running on batteries. Consequently, they can pose a serious threat to our fleet in the case of a conflict. With the Virginia class, which is specifically engineered to operate in brown water, this threat can be combated easier.

/Don't neccesarily agree with it or disagree with it, am just sayin'
 
2004-10-24 12:38:46 PM
Alys writes:

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?

Nope, but at last check Iran was. If it suited Iran's interest to cooperate to a limited degree with Osama, I'm sure those in charge are stupid enough to do it.

Also, the Chinese don't seem to have any trouble building new subs and surface combatants of their own, and have been rattling their saber off and on for some time now.

While it seems that every piece of military hardware we buy these days has to have justification as being useful in the "war on terror", the truth is we need to maintain a credible military capability against more conventional attacks, such as those that may be carried out by North Korea and/or China in the years ahead.

--h
 
2004-10-24 12:49:14 PM




Yes, there is no terrorist activity at sea. This sub is obviously a waste of money.

 
2004-10-24 12:53:08 PM
hdhale

The good news (and I've actually seen this first hand) is that there actually are people high-up in the military who understand what the threat is and will be 20 and 50 years down the road and they really do try to direct spending toward things we actually need. I never saw anyone wearing a uniform waste money. I know it happens. I'm just saying I never saw it.

The bad news is that politicians don't give a shiat about any of that. Seriously. Not one single politician anywhere at any level of government cares out spending money wisely. Their only concern is getting reelected, and they funnel money into projects and programs that garner them votes.

In my actual real world experience, military purchases have been a battle between the brass, who says, "we need A. We should cancel B." And politicians who say, "now listen son, B is built in my district and if we cancel it I'll lose votes."

I know it doesn't always work that way, so please don't waste your breath giving me counterexamples. I'm just saying that's what I've seen.

While it seems that every piece of military hardware we buy these days has to have justification as being useful in the "war on terror"

I think the military people use the words "war on terror" because (1) that's what people want to hear. If they commissioned this sub and the speech went like this: "this thing is made to fight a brown water navy" then everyone in the audience would be looking around confused. They'd have no idea what that meant. And (2) it helps the politicians get votes which makes them more amicable to paying for it.

If only real life worked more like civilization where just one person was in control of our research and build queue :-)
 
2004-10-24 12:53:39 PM
Ships are christened at a certain point during the build phase. It happens way before launch.

An old cynic like me might suggest that the ship was probably christened when they could get Laura down there without George being around to make the bottle mysteriously disappear...
 
2004-10-24 01:02:56 PM
Newest Navy subs have no periscopes...
The gypseys had no homes, don't let that scare you, man, let it free you.

/Doors fan
 
2004-10-24 01:03:38 PM
... can still be sunk by knocking on the door.
 
2004-10-24 01:06:35 PM
enave
Ah, I see you're a Bush supporter. I hit a nerve, eh? Okay it isn't laughable because it shows a serious reality disconnect with the people approving budget for this kind of crap and those who would be so stupid as to make statements like those that I quoted. Its even more gravely serious that there are people like you who are dim enough to buy into this obvious lie.... and that you might vote.

If there really is a huge and imminent terrorist threat, then we need to see a lot more funding for intelligence. This type of enemy doesn't have a navy, army or airforce and isn't packaged neatly in a single country. They're a bunch of rabidly devout individuals with excellent planning and no respect for life. With the right intelligence our new enemy can be taken out with bullets to their foreheads. We don't need new aircraft carriers, submarines, stealth bombers, and missile defense systems. We do need to immediately divert budget from any projects like this into intelligence. The last thing I read on the subject said that there was a one year backlog of intercepted Middle Eastern communications that had not been translated due to lack of computing power and people.

But we have a new hundred million dollar submarine. Whew! We're saved! Republicans are riding the wave of fear to justify military buildup in every branch of the armed forces. Same story, different decade, different bad guys. From all indications, we're fighting this new enemy with the same tactics as the old cold war. The only label for that is 'stupid'.

Oh and enave, sweetie, you must be new to electronic debate so I'll let you in on a little secret... zeroing in on typos is the sure sign of a desperate mind.
 
2004-10-24 01:25:35 PM
Ok, folks, stop yet biatchin'. They can call it a periscope if they want. Words change... although I agree that "On screen" is way cool. Now we just need submarines with phasers. And shields. And transporters. Say what you want about shallow-water S-Ops insertion, but it's so much more awesome when friggin' Seal Team 6 just appears out of nowhere in the middle of a terrorist camp and blows the hell out of everything.

Honestly, this is an incredibly amusing thread... all of these wannabe military experts pontificating about how this will be useless against terrorists as though they actually know what they're talking about. Classic. There is so much about this sub that's still classified that just about no one outside of the military could even begin to talk about all of its uses.
 
2004-10-24 01:26:44 PM
Just a quick question about the "the periscope must feed directly into a lower command center" theory of periscopes: why? Light from the periscope is already bounced through two reflectors (well, often times TIR glass refractors, but it amounts to the same), so why not add more tubing, or fiber optics, and pipe the light anywhere you want to in the ship?
 
2004-10-24 01:27:20 PM
BearToy I'm not voting for Bush.

Nonetheless, the contract to build this ship was assigned on 30 September 1998, while Bill Clinton was president. Her keel was laid down on 2 September 1999, while Bill Clinton was president.

What does this have to do with republicans?? I'd really like an answer to that.
 
2004-10-24 01:29:32 PM
Ah, I see you're a Bush supporter.



Since enave said "Not one single politician anywhere at any level of government cares out spending money wisely", not making any distinction for W, I see you're a mushroom smoker.
 
2004-10-24 01:33:49 PM
BearToy

...

We do need to immediately divert budget from any projects like this into intelligence


I do agree that there is a very real need to improve intelligence. However, the best intelligence has to be backed up by hardware. Honestly, I really don't think that there's more that a few people who know everything that this sub is capable of. I suspect that it has both collection and action capability-- that is, an improved ability to gather intelligence as well as carry out missions based on that intelligence. The problem is that this entire thread is speaking from a lack of information. Again, the capabilities of this sub are simply not known. For every statistic and description released, there's a boatload that isn't.

Also, personally, I find it rather amusing when people harp on other people's typos. Just me...
 
2004-10-24 01:37:13 PM
...the contract to build this ship was assigned on 30 September 1998, while Bill Clinton was president. Her keel was laid down on 2 September 1999, while Bill Clinton was president.

What does this have to do with republicans??


Hey enave, you just keep logic and facts out of this, OK? This is Fark, the home of illogic and sloganeering, not logical thought. Away with you!
 
2004-10-24 01:37:36 PM
The entire point of the submarine force is that you DON'T know what missions they perform. A perfect submarine mission never makes the news, so those of you who are complaining about what subs do for the GWOT don't know what you are talking about.
 
2004-10-24 01:39:52 PM
2004-10-24 01:06:35 PM BearToy
With the right intelligence our new enemy can be taken out with bullets to their foreheads. We don't need new aircraft carriers, submarines, stealth bombers, and missile defense systems.

so what do you classify as intelligence? spies and paid informants? where do you get your surveillance? and once you get your information, who do you expect to fire that bullet, and how do you plan to get them there quickly and undetected? fly them in from noisy helicopters that have to be stationed nearby? we would need to maintain bases and occupation in a lot of places for that, or keep aircraft carriers in ports all over the world. these all require lots of money and constant personnel and are targets to terrorists by just being there.

on the contrary, submarines can be near any beach at any time undetected, land and retrieve special ops personnel without advance warning, or even launch guided cruise missiles, and support all of this with a lean crew and no permanent land presence. its been done for years, have you not heard? maybe not, these missions actually CAN be kept secret - try to get any information out of anyone who served on the Parche, the sub being replaced by the likes of Virginia, Texas, and Jimmy Carter.
 
2004-10-24 01:42:11 PM
Any complaints over spending money on the wrong platform should be devoted to the Seawolf class, not the Virginia class. The Seawolf class was designed to counter Soviet subs and have every fancy bell and whistle included, so they ended up being very expensive and hard to build and maintain.

The Virginia class is revolutionary with respect to how it was designed and built and can be modified in a modular sense (at the time of construction, not afterwards...) to meet certain mission needs.

Need more SEAL delivery capability in future subs?...just plop in the Spec. Warfare module on the next couple subs being built. Need more intel work....put in an intelligence gathering module.

These are the subs that are going to replace the Los Angeles class subs, which are starting to show their age. They are also meant to meet the future challenges, as enave mentioned. We may dominate the submarine force now, but China will be catching up mighty quickly if we give them half a chance.
 
2004-10-24 01:49:43 PM
MBooda
Since enave said "Not one single politician anywhere at any level of government cares out spending money wisely", not making any distinction for W


since we're talking about money here, I'd even go so far as to say that Bush is the worst example of this ever. Congress should have investigated those no-bid contracts and possibly impeached him for it. I really can't think of any excuse for it. This sub however, is not an example of Bush wasting money. This is an example of Clinton wasting money. BearToy can't see the truth because he's blinded by irrational, dare I say juvenile hatred. If his ice-cream cone melts he likely blames it on Bush.

Me? I'm just a realist. Both of these guys screw things up. In the end, both of them care only about their own interests - their own election, and their own money. I'm sure that the way I rank my values differs greatly from the way BearToy (if he could even enunciate a set of values) ranks his. I dislike socialism - a lot. So all things being equal, I would usually vote Republican. But since all things are not equal these days, I'm sure as hell not putting Bush back in office. He's screwed up big time and he deserves to get fired. And in four years we can elect McCain to replace him.

BearToy is truly a mind-numbed robot. He's going to live his entire life as a democrat without even understanding why. When democrats screw up and do things he doesn't like (like buying multi-million dollar submarines) he will, like the good little robot he is, blame it on Eurasia - the Republicans. BearToy has always been at war with the Republicans. He doesn't even know why. And he'll never wake up. Personally, I find that sad.
 
2004-10-24 01:52:07 PM
Used to fight terrorism? What a load of crap. For 2.2 BILLION US dollars, they should buy a few hundred speed boats and equip them with MGs and night vision optics, you know, like, to actually protect US coasts and harbors.

"We cannot ever blink. We cannot ever flinch. We cannot yield," said Warner, a former Navy secretary. "This ship will very definitely play a role in that war on terror."

That's it pal. I'm sure the terrorists, after using methods of infiltration, car and boat bombs and civilian airplanes, they'll be coming in a frickin' aircraft carrier this time.

It's interesting to note how completely uncritical the press and the public are at the crap they're being fed.
 
2004-10-24 01:57:31 PM
Ook

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


Er, maybe not. Time-chipped monopulse (aka "sneaky wave") is basically untraceable, has a nearly magical efficiency (ERP vs reception distance), isn't affected much at all by wave surface induced multi-path distortion and is compact enough to put on handheld instruments. Not to mention the little freaky looking sneakywave antennae are pretty small. Oh, you also get the tasty added benefit of being able to detect distance and angle of reception from the transmitter if you have the chipping sequence so you can just about track it on a plot display like you were looking at a radar return, which would make it so much easier to direct one of those little remotes. Uh, theoretically speaking.

Here's you another scenario. The sub locks out a pod containing something like the new boron-graphite composite hover drones powered by that spiffy lithium aerogel-poly battery. It has a FLIR night vision camera, a sneakywave transmitter and enough juice to go inland a few miles. It gets to the surface, pops the can open and takes off. The sub floats a sneakywave antenna buoy and they video-game the thing up and down the coast to make sure the coast is clear for whichever flavor SF you are going to deposit. When you are about out of juice, you fly it into the water and hit the little thermate charge.
 
2004-10-24 02:02:50 PM
2004-10-24 01:42:11 PM Nuclear Monk
Any complaints over spending money on the wrong platform should be devoted to the Seawolf class, not the Virginia class. The Seawolf class was designed to counter Soviet subs and have every fancy bell and whistle included, so they ended up being very expensive and hard to build and maintain.


yes, and that's why the Seawolf class was cancelled after only the third boat. there were originally plans for 30 or so. the last one, Jimmy Carter which was just completed, is heavily modified from the original design to be able to meet modern capabilities.
 
2004-10-24 02:03:25 PM
treesloth
I really don't think that there's more that a few people who know everything that this sub is capable of

Unless it has a cloaking device and is able to hover silently above the dessert, slink around in caves, and lurk about amongst the camels while the next terrorist plot is hatched, then its a waste. This thing and the completion of the carrier USS Ronald Reagan are much more about the old military complex trying to justify its existence than any sort of real "War On Terror". The only reason Bin-Laden targeted the USS Cole is because it was there and our intelligence was too inept to keep it safe. Another couple of items of interest are that Bin-Laden pulled this off without a navy or multimillion dollar high tech submarines and... oh yeah... he's still free.

I would never propose that we need to let our naval, air, and armed forces atrophy. On the contrary, China may wait until we're spread too thin with our corporate takeovers of Middle Eastern countries then come up behind us with conventional military force. But to continue building, for example, fancy new submarines and have the audacity to try to get us to believe that it has anything to do with the "War On Terror" is insulting and asinine.
 
2004-10-24 02:03:37 PM
"Lynda Robb Johnson, daughter of President Lyndon Johnson and wife of former Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va. ..."

Shouldn't her name be Lynda Johnson Robb?
 
2004-10-24 02:07:25 PM
I'd like to know how this will stop osama....really, I would.

What a joke...
 
2004-10-24 02:15:24 PM
<<<<<<<<<Was a Sonar Technician on a Fast Attack 95-99

Subs gather intel from not just the sea but air as well.They work very well gathering intel while remianing undetected.

Granted it doesn't do much for terrosits bunkered down in caves but a precision Tomahawk can be a surgical weapon launched against land targets and they wouldn't know it was launched until it was too late.Its not like a big bulky ship floating offshore firing missles or a nondiscrete plane coming in to drop bombs.It can fire missles while submerged and leave little to no warning for the target.
 
2004-10-24 02:17:16 PM
I for one will sleep better knowing that we can build better submarines than the terrorists.
 
2004-10-24 02:17:51 PM
Unless it has a cloaking device and is able to hover silently above the dessert


Wasn't that the Klingon bird-of-prey in "Star Trek VII: Revenge of the Blancmange from the Planet Skyron"?
 
2004-10-24 02:18:31 PM
beartoy

I'm actually expecting the "Halloween surprise" any day now. So maybe the UBL task requirement could be relaxed until the introduction of the new Admiral Nelson class hoversub.

We have an office pool on the number of days left until the dramatic capture.


/this patch is a good trivia question, if a Farker gets this one without looking it up, you have my suspicions
 
2004-10-24 02:21:19 PM
even if it's not a true periscope, it's still goign to be called a periscope. honestly, I'm surprised this wasn't done years ago.

Yup, when was the last time you 'dialed' a telephone number. Language sticks around even when technology changes.
 
2004-10-24 02:32:10 PM
Yes BearToy, it's best if you just ignore the question I've asked you twice now. I got you. It's too painful for you to accept it.
 
2004-10-24 02:56:19 PM
No, he shouted it after he jumped on stage and broke his ankle.

If he'd shouted it beforehand, Lincoln would have known he was there, and he wouldn't have gotten to add his sneak attack damage to the attack. That rogue...
 
2004-10-24 03:16:21 PM
enave
What question is that? I guess I've been too amused by you being enamored by The Emperor's New Clothes to seriously consider any question from you. Was it that I see Republicans behind this? Historically and irrefutably the Republicans are almost always the biggest proponents of military buildups. Reagan did it for 8 years, although it might not have been as necessary as some would like to believe. Am I distracted that Clinton, a Democrat, approved its building? Absolutely not. Like a sitting president has never been pressured and cajoled into supporting a plan from the other party as a result of months of give-and-take deal making. Clinton was very good at promising one thing and doing the opposite. He was always much more about deal making than staying inside his party's doctrine. He promised the Gay Community support and then knifed us in the neck with the Defense Of Marriage Act. I'm no Clinton fan.

Are there Democrats who also want to blindly build the military on all fronts? Certainly. I'm a Libertarian so I can see it from the outside. Historically, Republicans have always had a boogeyman to justify military spending. They don't have The Communists anymore so now they have The Terrorists. If we've just got to have new military toys, the money spent on this useless tub would have purchased a couple dozen UAVs that have a much better chance of catching your average dessert dwelling rather than underwater terrorists.
 
2004-10-24 03:25:20 PM
BearToy --
"If we've just got to have new military toys, the money spent on this useless tub would have purchased a couple dozen UAVs that have a much better chance of catching your average dessert dwelling rather than underwater terrorists."


Well, "terrorists" is a much better cover word and less provocative than "the Chinese."
 
2004-10-24 03:32:05 PM
"The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance"

That's one of the major reasons why we buy new equipment...it is the cost of freedom. Don't like it? Tough. Think we could use that money elsewhere? Too bad...I suggest we raise our taxes since they are, compared to every other western nation, quite low. Don't cannibalize the military to boost funding in other areas...open your wallets and show us how much you really care about the wellfare of your fellow American. Cutting defense is one of those easy and relatively painless methods of serving ourselves without actually having to do anything. It is indicative of the short-sighted tendancy of many Americans to sacrifice the long-term for short-term gain. I'd hate for history to repeat itself once more...with America cutting its procurement down to the point where we are woefully unprepared. And yes, the terrorists lack counters to the F/A-22 and Virginia...but only an idiot would think they are our sole threat...especially 10, 20, or even 50 years down the line. The fact remains that other countries are building platforms whose capabilities are increasingly superior to our current weaponry. Falling behind the technological curve is not a good idea.

Of course, it goes without saying that merely boosting funding does not mean that the problems will be solved. Indeed, in terms of our educational problems what is required is a major reorganization of American society as a whole...solving the social issues that undermine the educational system will require far more than new text books.
 
2004-10-24 03:45:22 PM
farktimenow

Now the commander will have to say " Turn On Digital Camera". It's just not the same.

It's less distracting than "Digital Camera Turn On".
 
2004-10-24 03:46:21 PM
How can you peek in cruise ship windows without a periscope?
 
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