10-12-2014, 06:21 PM
(10-12-2014, 04:38 PM)nominous Wrote: I agree with need nukes. I don't agree with the delivery platform. Submarines make a lot of sense. But perhaps it's a tad expensive and could be cheaper?
The missiles can fly quite far. The subs don't need to be near the targets, they need to be somewhere the enemy doesn't know they are.
That doesn't require nuclear propulsion.
It is however clear that once you give up your nukes you are an easy target.
So much for us honouring the agreement with Ukraine that allowed Russian to annex Crimea without our support despite a treaty we signed promising it.
See Libya.
Or Iraq.
And why NK is still hopping around like a box of angry frogs.
Nuclear propulsion allows a submarine to remain on operations without refuelling for huge lengths of time, in fact the limiting factor is food for the crew, latest nuclear submarines don't need refuelling for a few decades. This means that they can stay submerged almost indefinitely. Not using nuclear power to power a new submarine is designing it to be at a tactical disadvantage from the offset until someone comes up with something even better.
There is literally no point in spending hundreds of millions, if not billions on brand new submarines that can only stay submerged for several days or perhaps at most a couple of weeks.
This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted above as fact.
62k Diablo Phase 1 Gti-6: Project Thread
62k Diablo Phase 1 Gti-6: Project Thread