The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 4:30 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 1:27 pm 
Offline
Grrr... Eat your oatmeal!!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:07 pm
Posts: 5073
So while we have everyone arguing about immigration and unemployment. Human induced Climate Change. The economy and how bad everything is.. this article seems to be slipping by unmolested. Funny that,

Time.com article

Quote:
If China's satellites and spies were working properly, there would have been a flood of unsettling intelligence flowing into the Beijing headquarters of the Chinese navy last week. A new class of U.S. superweapon had suddenly surfaced nearby. It was an Ohio-class submarine, which for decades carried only nuclear missiles targeted against the Soviet Union, and then Russia. But this one was different: for nearly three years, the U.S. Navy has been dispatching modified "boomers" to who knows where (they do travel underwater, after all). Four of the 18 ballistic-missile subs no longer carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Instead, they hold up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each, capable of hitting anything within 1,000 miles with non-nuclear warheads.
Their capability makes watching these particular submarines especially interesting. The 14 Trident-carrying subs are useful in the unlikely event of a nuclear Armageddon, and Russia remains their prime target. But the Tomahawk-outfitted quartet carries a weapon that the U.S. military has used repeatedly against targets in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and Sudan.
(See pictures of the U.S. military in the Pacific.)
That's why alarm bells would have sounded in Beijing on June 28 when the Tomahawk-laden 560-ft. U.S.S. Ohio popped up in the Philippines' Subic Bay. More alarms were likely sounded when the U.S.S. Michigan arrived in Pusan, South Korea, on the same day. And the Klaxons would have maxed out as the U.S.S. Florida surfaced, also on the same day, at the joint U.S.-British naval base on Diego Garcia, a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean. In all, the Chinese military awoke to find as many as 462 new Tomahawks deployed by the U.S. in its neighborhood. "There's been a decision to bolster our forces in the Pacific," says Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "There is no doubt that China will stand up and take notice."
U.S. officials deny that any message is being directed at Beijing, saying the Tomahawk triple play was a coincidence. But they did make sure that news of the deployments appeared in the Hong Kong–based South China Morning Post — on July 4, no less. The Chinese took notice quietly. "At present, common aspirations of countries in the Asian and Pacific regions are seeking for peace, stability and regional security," Wang Baodong, spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said on Wednesday. "We hope the relevant U.S. military activities will serve for the regional peace, stability and security, and not the contrary."
(See pictures of the most expensive military planes.)
Last month, the Navy announced that all four of the Tomahawk-carrying subs were operationally deployed away from their home ports for the first time. Each vessel packs "the firepower of multiple surface ships," says Captain Tracy Howard of Submarine Squadron 16 in Kings Bay, Ga., and can "respond to diverse threats on short notice."
The move forms part of a policy by the U.S. government to shift firepower from the Atlantic to the Pacific theater, which Washington sees as the military focus of the 21st century. Reduced tensions since the end of the Cold War have seen the U.S. scale back its deployment of nuclear weapons, allowing the Navy to reduce its Trident fleet from 18 to 14. (Why 14 subs, as well as bombers and land-based missiles carrying nuclear weapons, are still required to deal with the Russian threat is a topic for another day.)
(See "Obama Shelves U.S. Missile Shield: The Winners and Losers.")
Sure, the Navy could have retired the four additional subs and saved the Pentagon some money, but that's not how bureaucracies operate. Instead, it spent about $4 billion replacing the Tridents with Tomahawks and making room for 60 special-ops troops to live aboard each sub and operate stealthily around the globe. "We're there for weeks, we have the situational awareness of being there, of being part of the environment," Navy Rear Admiral Mark Kenny explained after the first Tomahawk-carrying former Trident sub set sail in 2008. "We can detect, classify and locate targets and, if need be, hit them from the same platform."
(Comment on this story.)
The submarines aren't the only new potential issue of concern for the Chinese. Two major military exercises involving the U.S. and its allies in the region are now under way. More than three dozen naval ships and subs began participating in the "Rim of the Pacific" war games off Hawaii on Wednesday. Some 20,000 personnel from 14 nations are involved in the biennial exercise, which includes missile drills and the sinking of three abandoned vessels playing the role of enemy ships. Nations joining the U.S. in what is billed as the world's largest-ever naval war game are Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and Thailand. Closer to China, CARAT 2010 — for Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training — just got under way off Singapore. The operation involves 17,000 personnel and 73 ships from the U.S., Singapore, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand.
(See "Hu's Visit: Finding a Way Forward on U.S.-China Relations.")
China is absent from both exercises, and that's no oversight. Many nations in the eastern Pacific, including Australia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam, have been encouraging the U.S. to push back against what they see as China's increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea. And the U.S. military remains concerned over China's growing missile force — now more than 1,000 — near the Taiwan Strait. The Tomahawks' arrival "is part of a larger effort to bolster our capabilities in the region," Glaser says. "It sends a signal that nobody should rule out our determination to be the balancer in the region that many countries there want us to be." No doubt Beijing got the signal.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... z0t7IXaXyK


Look here so you do not see what we are doing over here.... They're doing it right.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 08, 2010 2:50 pm 
Offline
Rihannsu Commander

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
Posts: 4709
Location: Cincinnati OH
My money is that its a message against North Korea after they torpedoed the South Korean ship.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:06 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Whoever is writing this article is a **** moron.

First he implies that the Tomahawk-converted submarines are still nuclear strike platforms, when in fact the entire reason 4 were converted to SSGNs was that we had to reduced deployed warheads under SORT; although Trident is physically capable of carrying up to 12 MIRVs, START I reduced that to 8 and SORT to 4 or 5. In any case, eliminating 4 submarines with 24 missiles with 8 warheads apiece eliminated 768 towards complying with the 2,200 deployed warhead cap under SORT; if the Tomahawks were nuclear-tipped that would mean a net elimination of only 152 warheads; it simply wouldn't be worth the money, especially since cruise missiles, while good as a retaliatory weapon, combine all the weaknesses of bombers (can be shot down by fighters and SAMs, to be brief) with those of missiles (predictable flight path and behavior; cannot be called back once launched, Under Siege notwithstanding.)

Moreover, you wouldn't be able to risk micing nuclear and conventional tips on the same ship because you could trigger a nuclear response with a conventional strike, and you couldn't risk the submarine in special ops situations.

On the other hand, these submarines are hugely well-suited; at less that 3/4 billion per conversion they are a true bargain; getting extended life out of an existing platform. They also increase naval flexibility since they can launch a formidible precision strike and take some burden off the carrier fleet. Finally, they are the quietest submarines on earth; a critical benefit for their new role especially the Special Operations support portion of it.

This tool simply wanted them retired to "save money"; apparently being one of those idiots that wants to axe platforms wholesale rather than make smart defense cuts like eliminated extraneous 4-star headquarters as Gates is working on.

This is revelad by his ignorant questioning of why we still have a nuclear triad of bombers, ICBMs and SLBMs. Because each forms a part of a stable deterrent (one that is in danger of becoming inadequate and unstable with Obama's foolish moves). I hate to break it to this fool, but it's because neither China nor Russia is giving up theirs, nor will they ever, no matter how hard the "world without nuclear weapons" crowd whines and wishes and tries to pretend the Doomsday Clock was anything more than hystrionics. Russia is increasing its reliance on tactical weapons, which are not regulated by treaty to compensate for conventional weakness. Both nations are much closer together than we are to either and have other nuclear powers nearby.

This guy is just a strategically ignorant dingwad who wouldn't be commenting on such matters at all had the NYT even a modicum of integrity.

@ TheRiov: I suspect you're right.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 11:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: Mook's Pimp Skittle Stable
Umm....

I've read the article twice, and I see nowhere that he implies that the ships are still nuclear strike platforms.

In fact, in his first paragraph, he states that their nuclear weapons were replaced with conventional missiles.

I think you are also reading waaay too much into his comments about cost and the lack of need for a nuclear arsenal, but that might just be me.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:03 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
A single tomahawk fired at the Three Gorges dam would effectively destroy China. That is the single biggest security risk I have ever seen a country undertake.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:10 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Because then he turns right around and talks about how they are useful in the event of nuclear war and their primary target is Russia. Where he's getting that nonsense from is beyond me, but it's pretty clear that he's trying to imply they're really still nuclear-tipped.

Of course, he's so collossally ignorant that maybe he really does think a swarm of conventional Tomahawks are primarily intended for a nuclear war. They could, indeed, have uses in such a case but conventional cruise missiles are really too slow to be terribly useful for any nuclear purpose; if used against defense installations before a first strike the warning they give may make them worse than useless and a lack of nuclear tips makes them worthless as retaliation.

As for his comments about the lack of need for a triad, they're simply his attempt to slip that in under the radar without having to confront the subject seriously, avoiding the need to make a public fool of himself on a subject he knows nothing about.

He reveals his bias and stupidity in other ways too: A "growing missile force" that China supposedly has near Taiwan? Now over 1,000? What "missile force" is this? He sure as **** can't mean ICBMs which would be rather pointless against Taiwan and which China has nowhere near 1000 of anyhow. Other than those, or other nuclear missiles, what the **** is a "missile force"?

There's also his little comment about "that's not how bureaucracys operate" in response to why the Ohios weren't retired. This was actually a case where bureaucracy was not a problem. A bureaucracy (or the fictitious "military-industrial complex") would have retired the subs, then demanded new ones to do the same job, doubtless with less capability, at far greater cost due to need for a totally new design and building period, and would have made them available far later.

This article is just complete tripe by an utter douchenozzle.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:12 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Hopwin wrote:
A single tomahawk fired at the Three Gorges dam would effectively destroy China. That is the single biggest security risk I have ever seen a country undertake.


I'm fairly certain that a single Tomahawk hit would be insufficient to destroy that dam. I'm going to estimate 10 hits, minimum, possibly more. That's hits; not launches. I'm quite certain that there is significant air defense protecting the dam, in multiple layers.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:12 pm
Posts: 2366
Location: Mook's Pimp Skittle Stable
Diamondeye wrote:
Because then he turns right around and talks about how they are useful in the event of nuclear war and their primary target is Russia. Where he's getting that nonsense from is beyond me, but it's pretty clear that he's trying to imply they're really still nuclear-tipped.


Re-read it.

He says that the 14 ships that *wheren't* refitted are useful as a nuclear deterrent with Russia as a primary target.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 2:40 pm 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Diamondeye wrote:
Hopwin wrote:
A single tomahawk fired at the Three Gorges dam would effectively destroy China. That is the single biggest security risk I have ever seen a country undertake.


I'm fairly certain that a single Tomahawk hit would be insufficient to destroy that dam. I'm going to estimate 10 hits, minimum, possibly more. That's hits; not launches. I'm quite certain that there is significant air defense protecting the dam, in multiple layers.

You don't need to destroy it, a crack would more than suffice.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:59 am
Posts: 3879
Location: 63368
Used to be, Tomahawk's were fitted with nuclear warheads.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:20 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
NephyrS wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Because then he turns right around and talks about how they are useful in the event of nuclear war and their primary target is Russia. Where he's getting that nonsense from is beyond me, but it's pretty clear that he's trying to imply they're really still nuclear-tipped.


Re-read it.

He says that the 14 ships that *wheren't* refitted are useful as a nuclear deterrent with Russia as a primary target.


Whoops, my bad.

Still, his analysis is nothing but tripe.

Quote:
You don't need to destroy it, a crack would more than suffice.


By "destroy" I meant do enough damage that the water being held back would do the rest. If a mere crack is enough to destroy the damn, its already ridiculously weak. I don't see any reason the Chinese wouldn't engineer it with considerable reserve strength, both in case of attack and of natural disaster given the consequences of failure. I think 10 Tomahawks is a reasonably conservative estimate for damaging it to the point wher it could not be repaired before a catastrophic failure.

To actually reduce a structure of that size without relying on the water would require hundreds, maybe thousands of tomahawk hits. The Thanh Hoa bridge, a far less robust structure (not to say that it was not well-built; just nowhere near as large and solid as the dam) absorbed over 300 bomb hits before the 1972 raid that finally dropped it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 264 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group