Text 22602, 122 rader
Skriven 2012-03-19 18:59:20 av HAP NEWSOM (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av GLEN JAMIESON
Ärende: SILENT SERVICE 20319
============================
Hullo Glen
-> 
->  ->  -> My personal view is that Australia doesn't need submarines.  Any
->  ->  -> seaborne invasion force would be detected long before arrival, 
and
->  ->  -> dealt with by air or surface defence.  Considering the most 
recent
->  ->  -> naval skirmish, in the Falklands, were submarines used?  I think 
it
->  ->  -> was all aircraft and ship to ship missiles.
->  ->  ->
->  ->  HN> Any seaborne invasion force would already
->  ->  HN> have prepared defenses for air and surface
->  ->  HN> attacks. It is much harder to defend against
->  ->  HN> an unseen attacker who can attack anywhere along
->  ->  HN> the route, and possibly remain undetected after
->  ->  HN> the attack as well.
-> 
-> Have submarines taken part in a defensive way during the last 60
-> years?  German and Japanese boats were very effective at sinking
-> transport ships in the N Atlantic and Australian E Coast, and they
-> contributed to the attack on Pearl Harbour, torpedoing several ships.
->
The original Japanese position was that the
attack on Pearl Harbor was defensive in nature
as well. It can be argued that there is no such
thing as a "defensive" weapon as any "strike" can
be considered as an offense. 
 
-> From what I have read, the Brits used submarines for clandestine
-> delivery and pick-up of spies and secret agents at night, to France.
-> Their invisibility enabled that function to be done effectively.
->
Both the Brits and US used subs in that
fashion, in France, Italy and other
places as well, for landing spies
and saboteurs, and even repatriating
"freedom fighters" to their homelands.
 
->  -> That makes my point that a submarine is primarily an offensive 
weapon.
->  -> During WW2 over 40 ships were sunk by Japanese submarines along the
->  -> Australian East coast, and some towns shelled, but of course that
was
->  -> never publicised at the time.  The ferry sunk in Sydney Harbour
could
->  -> hardly be kept secret, though.  As I do not think that Australia has
-> 
->  HN> Every "weapon" is both defensive and
->  HN> offensive. If you had subs defending your
->  HN> coast in WWII you'd have used them "defensively".
-> 
-> All the attacks on Australia were by submarines and aircraft.
-> 
-> As far as I know, Australia has had submarines in its Navy since 1914.
-> Interesting point; how does sub vs sub work?
-> 
Usually with one of them never reaching
the surface again. 

->  ->  HN> All the more reason to go with a 
->  ->  HN> boat that has a proven track record
->  ->  HN> of success. 
->  -> Or not to waste money on something not needed.
->  ->
->  HN> Well you're certainly entitled to that 
->  HN> opinion...and maybe you can convince your
->  HN> government to accept that plan.
->  HN> Good luck with that by the way! (grin)
-> 
-> My government is more concerned with how many jobs they can boast
-> about creating from building subs than whether they are of any use
-> once finished.  By those standards, the Collins has been an
-> outstanding success, as the building time has gone on and on!!
->
You certainly have a point there!
  
->  ->  ->  -> Ship building is not doing well in Eastern Australia, but in 
the
->  ->  ->  -> they are building large, 40 knot catamaran transports for
the 
US 
->  ->  -> 
->  ->  ->  HN> That would be AUSTAL...and they have 
->  ->  ->  HN> shipyards in the USA as well, Norfolk
->  ->  ->  HN> for one I think and I think the other
->  ->  ->  HN> is on the gulf coast somewhere
-> 
-> Mobile.
-> 
->  ->  HN> They are also building other craft
->  ->  HN> as well, teaming up with Northrup Grummond I think.
->  -> 
->  -> "Northrop Grumman"
-> 
-> There is quite a lot on Wiki about that relationship.
-> 
->  -> What do US Navy people think of the non-traditional Austal design of
->  -> the LCSs and JHSVs?  They seem to be far more successful here than 
the
->  -> dreaded Collins.  I read that when the first of those large
trimarans
->  -> appeared in the distance near Timor some of the locals thought it
was
->  -> some sort of sea monster.  I was in Darwin when one of them docked
->  -> there, and it is certainly weird looking.
->  ->
->  HN> I can't answer for what the US Navy thinks
->  HN> but nothing sways opinion like success. And 
->  HN> the fact that the Navy has ordered the ships
->  HN> makes me think they like em at least a wee  bit!
-> 
-> As far as I have heard our military like them, as the multi-hull
-> design allows them to keep going at 40 knots (not "per hour"!) in
-> quite heavy seas.
-> 
Personally I'd rather have a submarine.
For obvious and personal reasons! (grin)
chat with you soon!
ha
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 And Still Here. Join Us: www.DocsPl (1:123/140)