Maybe, don't ask me. I'd leave that sort of thing for smarter people to decide; I've got my head and hands full even though I'm not really doing anything.
>should the USN hamstring itself by going back to antiquated, outclassed, inferior tech, in a time when the USN is shrinking anyways?
No. Dumb question. Think before you post next time.
Quieter, sure. But diesel subs are much much slower than nuclear subs, especially when submerged. They're essentially smart mines. The USN doesn't need littoral ships, because the next war the USN fights will be on the other side of the Pacific.
let's make a submarine that needs to be filled up every day at a gas station with unleaded gasoline instead of one that can operate for 30 years for free
No, nuclear submarines are only really endurance limited by food, crew sanity and ammunition.
Non nuclear submarines add the limitation of BREATHABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE AIR along with their fuel as an endurance limitation. For near shore patrol vessels for nations like Korea and Japan this is just fine because they don't need to do things like not surface for months on end since they'll head back to port anyways.
For unmanned subs that do stuff like drop torpedo mines and then return sure. Drone subs have it a lot easier since they're all muscle no "fat" of having to deal with human requirements. They can get away with things like liquid oxygen and batteries since they operate in a preprogrammed manner and can move at optimal speeds for endurance where time isn't as much of a constraint.
>The last fleet engagement for the U.S. Navy was against the Imperial Japanese Navy in October 1944, at Leyte Gulf off the Philippine coast.
Please explain why we need non-nuclear submarines. Please.
Retard question, what are we considering to be a fleet engagement? Because the last engagement between the USN and surface combatants was Operation Praying Mantis in 1988 and they were facing multiple frigates, gunboats, plus an oil rig. Not much of a fleet but it constitutes most of the Iranian Navy at the time.
I’d also accept keeping a fully nuke fleet, but making a class that’s just straight up smaller. Even the Virginias are just too fucking big to be used in shallow waters
I want to fuck a 19 year old Korean as her dad watches with a gun at edge of the room, the door is locked so his crying wife can't come inside.
If I cum too early he'll kill us both then himself.
no that's fucking retarded
can you draw a diagram? having trouble piecing that together
And how early is "too early"?
That’s an oddly specific fantasy anon.
no
Maybe, don't ask me. I'd leave that sort of thing for smarter people to decide; I've got my head and hands full even though I'm not really doing anything.
Yes
But they will never take away potential money from the nuclear subs because muh industrial interests.
>should the USN hamstring itself by going back to antiquated, outclassed, inferior tech, in a time when the USN is shrinking anyways?
No. Dumb question. Think before you post next time.
Diesel subs can be quieter and are superior for littoral work.
> Diesel subs can be quieter
Nope
Quieter, sure. But diesel subs are much much slower than nuclear subs, especially when submerged. They're essentially smart mines. The USN doesn't need littoral ships, because the next war the USN fights will be on the other side of the Pacific.
>The Military Should Build Shittier Things
>shittier poorer nations are doing it, so why not us?
let's make a submarine that needs to be filled up every day at a gas station with unleaded gasoline instead of one that can operate for 30 years for free
It is all trade-offs. Each position has tactical and strategic advantages and disadvantages.
The Navy should build larger subs that can go deeper so they can put an underwater base somewhere in the shallows of the Atlantic continental shelf
I agree, the Navy's underwater base beneath the ice caps needs more funding
Look, they can just steal some more Nazi gold from their underwater base next door if they need more funding.
No, nuclear submarines are only really endurance limited by food, crew sanity and ammunition.
Non nuclear submarines add the limitation of BREATHABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE AIR along with their fuel as an endurance limitation. For near shore patrol vessels for nations like Korea and Japan this is just fine because they don't need to do things like not surface for months on end since they'll head back to port anyways.
Non-nuclear would presumably be fine for unmanned subs though i imagine.
For unmanned subs that do stuff like drop torpedo mines and then return sure. Drone subs have it a lot easier since they're all muscle no "fat" of having to deal with human requirements. They can get away with things like liquid oxygen and batteries since they operate in a preprogrammed manner and can move at optimal speeds for endurance where time isn't as much of a constraint.
There are a lot of reasons not to build nuclear submarines, but most of them are variants on "we don't have the money".
AIP can be quieter but given the roles of US subs making them non-nuclear doesn't make sense.
There is literally nothing a destroyer does that cannot be done better by a submarine.
Launch helicopters
Yes, but with the caveat that they should buy SSKs IN ADDITION TO SSNs, not INSTEAD OF them.
>The last fleet engagement for the U.S. Navy was against the Imperial Japanese Navy in October 1944, at Leyte Gulf off the Philippine coast.
Please explain why we need non-nuclear submarines. Please.
Retard question, what are we considering to be a fleet engagement? Because the last engagement between the USN and surface combatants was Operation Praying Mantis in 1988 and they were facing multiple frigates, gunboats, plus an oil rig. Not much of a fleet but it constitutes most of the Iranian Navy at the time.
The Navy should build non-nuclear submarines for export to friendly countries ftfy
I’d also accept keeping a fully nuke fleet, but making a class that’s just straight up smaller. Even the Virginias are just too fucking big to be used in shallow waters
>Are they right?
Sort of (picrel)