Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Of course it won't. I didn't suggest that. As the part you quoted itself says. You maintain enough to fight off independently the other nations of like ability and capacity. Enough to aid the big ally. Enough to make sure the big guy doesn't think it is worth it to go after you.

And perhaps most important of all enough to maintain a national sense of pride in ones own armed forces.

I doubt most nations in the world would give up their own forces and trust in the single big ally to protect them. In fact that would probably be a good invitation to being slowly absorbed into the other.

As I said. All of that was just my analysis of the situation.

Edit: Spelling? Isn't that what wizards do?

[ October 31, 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

I have a friend who serves on one of the Frigates. He states that the ship can stop from full speed at twice its length. A real Rush.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No offense, but thats plain wrong. The Soviet subs compared to American subs pretty much sucked. Soviet subs were loud. The November class lacked sufficient radiation shielding. The Akulas I think can go really fast, but make a bucketload of noise. Their boomers were the same way until recently. Soviet electronics were horrid, American electronic systems were far ahead (giving better sonar abilities to the US).
Now, the Soviets did have a few good ones, but the Los Angelos class (and more recently, SeaWolf, even though only 3) and Ohio class blow the heck outta anything in the water today.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

By stink boats I think he meant not nuke powered subs but the diesel ones. US nuclear powered subs are superior to anything out there. However I don't think the US made any major investments in diesel subs and the Soviets did.

Can't say for certain though as modern diesel subs really aren't something I keep up on other than a little here and there.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

I think it is more like this:

Boomers = missile subs - formerly armed with nuclear-MIRV-tipped Poseidons in Cold War days, not sure what they carry now - maybe Tomahawks with a variety of warheads for different uses? (Missile subs are primarily directed at targets on land, whereas hunter-killer subs armed with a variety of torpedos prey on ships and other subs.)

Stink boats = any sub (due to long underwater patrols building up a smell in the air system). Although maybe it is used more for diesel subs than for nuke subs - at least, Thermodyne's usage implied that to me.

SpaceBadger


edit: oops, it was Thermodyne, not Cyrien

[ October 31, 2003, 04:41: Message edited by: SpaceBadger ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

I always liked the boomer class subs. You have to admire something that in its ultimate US, the Ohio class, and Soviet, the Typhoon, incarnations could with a full salvo from a single sub devestate the whole world. OHIO-class boats each have 24 missiles with each Trident II missile capable of carrying 8 W88 warheads of 475kt yield. First deployed in 1990. The W88 is considered to be the US's most advanced nuclear weapon. Remember the whole Chinese trying to steal nuke plans? That's the one.

It is the hunter-killer types (Los Angeles Class) that have (currently) been refitted to aid in covert operations and to launch tomahawk cruise missiles. The boomers (still) just hide in the waters and wait to launch their nukes. Although, there are plans to convert several boomers into dedicated tomahawk/special ops platforms but the rest would keep their Trident II missiles with MIRV warheads in case we have an urge to blow up the world a few times over... pick 192 of your least favorite cities and there you go... per sub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

[ October 31, 2003, 05:14: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No offense, but thats plain wrong. The Soviet subs compared to American subs pretty much sucked. Soviet subs were loud. The November class lacked sufficient radiation shielding. The Akulas I think can go really fast, but make a bucketload of noise. Their boomers were the same way until recently. Soviet electronics were horrid, American electronic systems were far ahead (giving better sonar abilities to the US).
Now, the Soviets did have a few good ones, but the Los Angelos class (and more recently, SeaWolf, even though only 3) and Ohio class blow the heck outta anything in the water today. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Stink boats are diesels only. I work with an ex-soviet submariner; he told me that they called the diesels stink boats. Evidently the air would get very foul when they were under for extended periods of time. I guess it was from all that cabbage they eat http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

AS to Nukes, the US Navy is the standard. No one else can afford to play the game these days. China is trying, but they are way behind.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As part of our draw down of strategic forces, we were required to take 4 Ohio’s out of service. These are now being refitted to carry batteries of cruise missiles. Gotta love the idea, give it a quick reload and it’s a boomer again.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Actually an electric/diesel sub running on batteries is quieter then a nuclear sub. The main noise producer at that point is cavitation from the blades. That varies depending on the blade design, but is better for all blades at slow speeds. One of the big spy scandels at one point was when they "accquired" some of our blade design tech.

The Soviets at their height had some very good subs. Some were quieter then our best subs, but we had much better detection tech so for the most part we were still able to keep track of them. They had a different doctrine though, prefering to keep their subs close to home. For that the diesel/electric sub's shorter range isn't as much of a weakness compared to nuclear powered.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If the different warheads share the same missile, what is the maximum range that each warhead can stray apart?

And I thought this thread was about MBTs?