Serious question. Why do europoors make what are to most Americans basically midget subs? Is it because they can't into SSN or is it because these things just never leave their coast? It can't just be that though given they also have a preference for midget sized cars etc. The only countries that like big cars are basically here, Canada and Australia everyone's else likes tiny trucks and midget subs. What's going on here?
Picrel is the Italian Toti class submarine Attilio Bagnolini (S 505) laying on her side awaiting the scrappers torch in Turkey.
American subs are large because they are designed to cross literal oceans in expeditions. European and Asian subs are expected to operate in a specific region or similar theaters that aren't an ocean away. It's why the Japanese use diesel engine subs and the Americans use nuclear subs.
>It's why the Japanese use diesel engine subs and the Americans use nuclear subs.
Right but Japon and SK has said they want SSN. Australia is buying Virginia from us.
Also they're full of ICBMs.
American SSBNs are basically modern day battleships, which is why they get state names. European subs are basically sneaky destroyers/light cruisers in comparison and designed to deny their respective coastlines to a putative enemy.
muh social programs or something
>The only countries that like big cars are basically here, Canada and Australia everyone's else likes tiny trucks and midget subs. What's going on here?
You're retarded if you think Australians like big cars. They like sedans, utility vehicles and recently SUVs. Everyone hates the huge American trucks.
As for your question about Submarine sizes, diesel submarines, especially ones with AIP, are extremely quiet and do great in littoral regions. Australia is only buying nuclear submarines because of questionable political choices, if it were rational they'd be buying French/South Korean/Japanese submarines with a transition to nuclear submarines sometime in the 2050s. It's hard to explain to a foreigner just how retarded Australian politics and Australian politicians are.
>Everyone hates the huge American trucks.
I read SUV is literally the fastest selling car in Australia. You may hate them but you buy more than anywhere else per capita, save for US.
I'm not talking about SUVs. They're a bit excessive for city usage and they'll frequently cause traffic jams/slow downs because of how big they are but they're still pretty useful if you travel and can be used to tow things.
I'm talking about these fucking things. They are literally so big most inner-city roads are not capable of handling them, they cause excessive wear to roads, and the people who drive them are such stupid cunts that they frequently ignore their blind spots. They should be banned.
I know this is off-topic but I just had to mention it since you brought it up. An SUV that someone buys because they have 3 kids and "wants to be safe in a crash" (debatable since that means often the OTHER person won't be safe in a crash, therefore causing excessive SUV adoption and everyone driving like idiots) is different from one of these dick enhancers.
Noted but point was that Canada, Aust and US prefer big boy sizes while Europoors and bongs like pic rel.
That's a city car, they are popular in cities since Europeon cities can be awful for cars, they are cheap to run and good for a single person commuting. Everywhere else people get regular sized cars. I would say pic related in the most popular size/shape at the moment, everyone makes something that looks similar.
I saw some Mexican woman driving one of these today with Cali plates, the left rear tire was basically flat but she just kept going even though the thing looked like a smashed marshmallow. Jesus fuck.
I saw a Indian looking woman in one, driving at 30-40 with the hazards on. Dont know if it was in limp mode or something, but she just carried on despite there being loads of places.
sure you did
Are you retarded?
Most europeans either buy Wagons/estates or SUVs
Second are compact cars like a Golf, which is still big enough to comfortably fit 4 people and some luggage.
Those tiny cars like Polos, 500s, Citroen C1s are only by either beginners woth no money or city-dwellers.
If you live on the countryside, you‘d be hard pressed to find anything but Wagons and SUVs.
Also F150s and RAMs are increasingly popular, especially again outside of cities.
yeah, no. Not true. You see pickup trucks in rural areas but nowhere near as big as F150s and RAMs.
Are you retarded? 75% of Europeans are urbanites.
>debatable since that means often the OTHER person won't be safe in a crash
moron, I don't give a FUCK if you die in the crash. If you hit my car then I WANT you to die.
truggdriver intelligence everyone
I would ban tr*cks simply because they're so fucking ugly and unpleasant to drive. modern ones are especially bloated and malformed with super fucked up proportions
Shit taste. Trucks are more PrepHole than any other civilian vehicle out there.
trucks are for homofags
>not liking jerry rigged techies
>somehow I'm the homofag
If you have a truck that has an extended cab and no dents or dings in the bed then you need to be shot at this point. The entire point of having a truck is to FUCKING USE IT. If you arent hauling a bunch of shit or towing something that requires a lot of horsepower its a gigantic waste. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing one of these fucking abominations being driven around by some geriatric douchebag or fucking soccer mom where they only loads they carry are their own fat asses. Especially when they jerk off about how their 4WD means they are INVINCIBLE and drive like goddamn morons on ice and snow or feel like its ok for them to tailgate and go 20 over the limit everywhere.
Trucks are only useful for farmers or towing over 4 ton a van does the job better in every way. The only reason the large US trucks exist is nostalgia.
I agree with both of you, from experience here the real hardcore tradie types drive WorkMates, the bare minimum models, because they have decent towing ability, decent payload and allow them to spend the rest of their public holiday/night money on meth, strippers, cigarettes and alcohol.
Functional working truck
This thing is like one of those fucked up dog breeds. Every change made hurts functionality for the sake of nu-masculine curves or some horseshit.
>faggy seething about what other people own
This is actually reddit tier
It’s funny how much trucks make leftists seethe. I literally don’t even think about them. Maybe you should touch grass or take medication friend.
It's like with guns. We're living in a based and liveable society and we literally can't understand why America would intentionally choose to moron it up with 4 ton cars cheap gasoline and tons of guns.
>based and liveable society
Yea I only notice them when ones up my ass. I'd absolutely drive one though to piss off lefties. The more fuel inefficient the better.
why did you instantly presume he's a leftie?
Because in the US, the only people who whine about trucks are leftists. Normal people and conservatives don’t give a fuck about what vehicle someone owns.
Those things are so useful though. I used to do landscaping and I can't imagine getting anything done without one.
Have you ever ridden in a modern big truck with high-end trim, though? Shit's ridiculously comfy, it's like driving around on a couch.
I know the feeling, was even surprised by cool air coming out of the seats.
Great for country roads, but with the windy and crowded roads I live on, I would never give up the traction of my sporty hatchback.
That's actually a problem IMO. Expensive luxury sedans like you might find on the autobahn are built to feel comfy up to 200 km/h or whatever, and that's fine because they're actually intended to be used at that speed. Like, the entire point is that you can stomp on the brakes at near max speed and get ideal performance without needing the training of a racing driver. It's built to go fast and be safe while doing so for the average driver, if it were intended to be absolutely safe it'd have a roll cage and a harness.
These stupid trucks on the other hand? They're unnecessarily smooth and "safe" feeling, which leads to people getting complacent and doing stupid shit. It's not just a problem with these vehicles, it's a problem with all luxury cars, but most luxury cars don't weigh that much and aren't that large. SUVs are pushing it but still kind of acceptable, these trucks are a hazard to everyone else on the road.
As European visiting the US recently, renting an RV for sightseeing in less populated areas, the trucks on the road seemed to make absolutely perfect sense both from a usage-pattern and road-condition point of view.
it depends on the doctrine, e.g. France with the force de frappe and nuclear subs carrying nukes to be able to remove the population-centers of any country they want from the map is completely different to tiny german ones paroling the coast.
The relative spaciousness of the US and relative compactness of europe is probably the single biggest point of cultural misunderstanding between the residents of the two regions IMO.
Like, I could straight up not drive a BMW I3 as my commuter to work here in northern Minnesota. I have to drive 35 miles on often unplowed highways to get to work. Either I would be dead, or the undercarriage completely gauged within 6 months of purchase. On the flip side, A superduty F350 would be absolute hell to drive if I was working at my company's Turin office.
*gouged, not gauged
Yurogays consistently fail to understand that the USA is three times the size of West Europe.
Blame Obama and his stupid emission rules for big ass trucks
If you don't have any personal experience with a thing, why by so mad about it? Just stop repeating things other people told you, it will be much less embarrassing.
>SUV is literally the fastest selling car in Australia
There is now a class of upscale vehicle in worldwide markets known as the "City SUV". Basically, it's an "SUV" which unlike a "proper" SUV isn't intended to go into rough roads or trails, but is intended to be driven around the city or on autobahns. They ride much more comfortably because of their expensive almost-not-quite-SUV suspension, but are generally for prestige purposes.
>these fucking things
These are on the far near-luxury end of the City SUV class. Some regard them as "prestige / luxury SUVs" for C-execs who want a luxury vehicle that can visit building sites. Cause they don't want to scuff up the Rolls sitting in the garage...
no, they buy g-wagons. these trucks are comparable to a bmw at best.
New Rav4’s are fucking everywhere right now. I actually want one.
>Australia is only buying nuclear submarines because of questionable political choices
>unironically pushing French/South Korean/Japanese submarines
How are you retards still exposing yourselves as seething fags to this day. SSN>SSKs everyday of the week, having better range and endurance seals the deal
Even beyond that, the speed of an SSN makes it very difficult to evade if she's coming to kill you. The limiting lines of approach for an SSN are way more generous than for a SSK and its far more likely to survive after its revealed itself by firing missiles or torpedoes.
Building nuclear submarines is very difficult. Australia wants to get in on it and even with the owners of most nuclear submarines fully supporting that however possible, the timeline and cost projections for setting up even one Australian nuclear submarine yard are basically "Hopefully by 2040, and for less than 600 billion"
Most other countries are basically tripwire forces that have to just exist Ling enough for the US to arrive and start fucking up the OPFOR long dick style. They are notionally going to be fighting on a much shorter supply line and so don't need the internal space to carry a shit load of missiles and torpedoes since they can just go back for more. Similarly they don't really need the endurance or performance of an SSN since they can return to refuel at protected anchorages close to the battle area. American ships can't, and probably will not get even one reload during the course of an entire conflict. American ships also have to fight in blue water, where top speed and sustained speed are nearly as relevant as stealth for a submarine, unlike in the littoral.
American ships are also expected to be part of the day one of war alpha strike, so have to have plenty of internal volume for TLAMs, insertion of SEALs etc, all of which will likely happen before they even clock in for their day job of scrapping Chink tonnage.
>It's hard to explain to a foreigner just how retarded Australian politics and Australian politicians are.
I understand after reading how you lost your general gun rights, wish you guys would've fought harder for em.
Why is everyone replying to this thread as if OP posted some kind of factual statement. The Vangaurd is 490 ft, Triomphant is 450 ft, the russian subs are as big as the American ones.
We're keeping the discussion to humans only anon.
I don't think so anon.
Yes, Russia is inside Europe. Just because Russia's gay colonial empire is in Asia doesn't mean Russia proper is in Asia as well.
twenty eight us marines in BLACK ford raptor trucks...
They don't need to fit Americans inside.
You don't necessarily need a giant nuclear sub if the intended use is just patrolling the nearby sea or whatever.
"Europoor" diesel-electric subs have penetrated US carrier defence multiple times and taken photos of US carries through the periscope. The midget subs in question serve a different purpose other than launching nukes and therefore excel at different things.
No one said SSKs aren't capable. An Australian sub did something similar in 2001. SSKs are importantly limited and that's because they are midget size with low range.
And a Greek sub did it... and a French sub... and another German sub again and then the US dropped out of similar wargames for a decade because it kept happening. Diesel-Electric subs are small, silent, comparable cheap and therefore perfect for non-continent sized countries like most nations in Europe.
They are naval force multipliers that can deter stronger and larger navies and their respective supply chain. All of that is making it perfect for European coastal defence and valuable assets in conventional naval warfare against Russia in the shallow water of the Baltic-sea and the Mediterranean-sea.
Other customers that use European subs face similar situations as an example: South Korea.
>the US dropped out of similar wargames for a decade
It keeps happening because there are some scenarios where the US clearly gives the SSK the advantage. And then some retard takes the one exercise the SSK won and publishes it everywhere while all the details or the other exercises where the SSK couldn't pull it off go unreported.
That's nice cope without any real proofs, but you're supposed to prove that even if SSK couldn't sink the carrier, SSN would do it better.
>That's nice cope without any real proofs
Still waiting for you to substantiate your claims. Its a two-way street.
There is literally proof that SSK keep doing good at defending coasts (exercises). There is no proof to invalidate those claims. You can obviously yell "But those don't prove enough", but it still means that rhetorically the claims that SSK are effective is substantiated than the claim that those are useless.
In particular there is also no proof that
>there are some scenarios where the US clearly gives the SSK the advantage. And then some retard takes the one exercise the SSK won and publishes it everywhere while all the details or the other exercises where the SSK couldn't pull it off go unreported.
Besides your ass.
>There is literally proof
You can find exercise reports about subs yourself. Stop being disingenuous with your "no proof" before going "actually my dad told me USA is going really easy on everyone and didn't even bring out their reptilian tech".
>You can find exercise reports about subs yourself
So you got nothing and you haven't a leg to stand on when demanding others provide proof.
French SSN actually
A bunch including a fucking leaf and a soviet shit bucket during cold war.
General article on SSK.
>they never get to practise attacks
You're a fucking idiot. They are supposed to practice sneaking up that's the attack. Not launching torpedoes at the carrier, it's getting in position to launch torpedoes while the entire fleet is on alert. Also fun fact about the second link - USA likes hiding their failures in those.
>Not launching torpedoes at the carrier
That's what you think.
>first link is from an event nearly two decades ago and lists a number of drawbacks that would make it unsuitable to countering a CSG
Yeah, not wasting time on the others. Opinion discarded
>These limitations don't pose a problem to diesel subs operating relatively close to friendly bases, defending littoral waters. But while diesel submarines may be great while operating close to home — the US Navy usually doesn't.
The only limitation is that it's not a sub for offensive operations stalking CSG that are too far away to operate efficiently against your coast anyway.
>The only limitation is that it's not a sub for offensive operations stalking CSG that are too far away to operate efficiently against your coast anyway
Ok, so the whole thing is gay and retarded and SSNs are a better weapon. Glad you were able to admit it under your own volition
>weapon so bad in case of invasion of fucking Sweden USA could effectively use 0 of their carriers
>SSKs are invulnerable
>weapon so bad the critique becomes "b-but they are not invulnerable"
Reminds me of
>Most naval officers today view the diesel-electric submarine in shallow waters as an almost invincible adversary. This impression arises not from analysis or experience, but from simple ignorance. Lack of theory and practice has perpetuated this myth, even in the face of advances in almost every area of submarine and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) technology.
Surely with 100x leverage in assets you can sink one.
>you need 100 submarines to sink one SSK!
You said the Swedish SSK could not realistically close enough for the war game scenario to be valid yourself. Congratulations, you played yourself.
>SSK keep doing good at defending coasts
which is why carriers don't usually hang around coasts, except when doing exercises so SSK and ASW captains alike get to practice
>In particular there is also no proof that
Sweaty, do you not know how exercises work? There is a script so that everybody gets to practice what they need to practice
Oh no, you actually thought exercises are free for alls where everyone fights like a real battle? Oh dear
>which is why carriers don't usually hang around coasts
Oh they actually do hang around in the range of SSK unless they aren't providing air support at all.
>Sweaty, do you not know how exercises work?
Exercises don't just "work". There are various types of those including those whose goal is judging the effectiveness of two approaches. Things like exercise dogfights aren't two people following a script that tells one when to pretend his missile malfunctioned, they setup conditions and then judge how well the two sides do in those. The same deal with those. Blufor wants to prove their training and equipment by detecting the sub, the sub wants to do prove its stealth capabilities by pretending to pop torpedoes once it gets close enough.
The effect is that small SSKs are a total bitch to detect.
>Blufor wants to prove their training and equipment by detecting the sub, the sub wants to do prove its stealth capabilities by pretending to pop torpedoes once it gets close enough
And if subs are never allowed to get close, they never get to practise attacks. Just like if ASW is never allowed to find a sub, they never get to practise attacks.
And we don't know how often ASW succeeded in finding the sub despite evasive manoeuvres, and how often SSKs succeeded in finding the carrier despite ASW protection. So it's retarded to make any kind of statement of effectiveness based on these exercises.
>small SSKs are a total bitch to detect
But no weapon system is all-powerful, and there are ways to operationally mitigate their effectiveness.
Wasn't that the greek submarine? A type 209 or so from the seventies lol.
It's funny how wargames happen inside of closeby predestinated squares in the ocean so everyone can visually see everyone else but you have to pretend you don't see subs lol.
1. It costs a lot of money to build them
2. It costs a lot of money to maintain them
3. You need enriched uranium which is very tightly controlled
4. European navies sans the Royal Navy and French Navy are mostly meant to patrol European waters so anything more than diesel is overkill
>2. It costs a lot of money to maintain them
This is even more important than upfront cost. While an SSN costs "only" 2.5x more than an SSKI, its personnel and logistics tail is something like 5x bigger. It also requires a lot more specialized infrastructure and training.
Australia also likes smaller subs. the big ones we're buying from america are a temporary measure until smaller subs are produced.
Its designing for need and expected use. America is planning for war of any scale anywhere in the world, and having submarines and aircraft carriers that can operate completely independently for years without even refuelling has value. All of americas threat actors are an ocean away, europe can get to them on land.
Small subs are sneakier but can't go very far, which is a good tradeoff for most euro countries.
For most countries small coastal SSKs are all they need. SSNs are what you need if you want to play grab-ass in the Atlantic or Pacific for 6-12 months, which only Britain, France, and arguably Spain have enough Atlantic access to justify.
Even the bongs used SSKs (Oberons) to supplement their SSNs. And they were initially planning to build 12 Upholders before 1990 rolled along.
>to supplement their SSNs
I'll put this in a way that might help the retards ITT understand:
SSNs = cruisers
SSKs = missile boats
except SSNs are even better than cruisers since they can steam at full chat underwater for literal months AND not need refuelling at the end. they can go into action straightaway.
HMS Spartan sailed from the UK, arrived less than 3 weeks later in the TEZ, and immediately began tracking the Argentinian Navy. In contrast, HMS Onyx took 36 days to reach the Falklands AO, including refuelling stops both underway and at Ascension.
>Europe has normal cars
well, 20% of car sales in 2019 were for small cars (ie hatchbacks etc)
>SSKs = missile boats
SSKs are more like mobile minefields. They can interdict shipping that comes into their alotted zone, but they can't chase down vessels, or tail them.
Also, despite the age of their fundamental concept, there are a few interesting new developments: diesel-powered fuel cells (might one day replace the main diesel engines) and high-capacity batteries (which increase submerged endurance almost four-fold, compared to the old lead-acid shit).
well, that's why they're not like mobile minefields; AIP, fuel cells and new batteries gives them *some* reach analogous to missile boats in the 70s
They're still really slow. Even the latest Taigei can barely hit 30 kt emergency/flank speed, and sustained cruise is around 15 kt. Whereas a decent SSN can easily reach 35 in sprint, and cruise all day and night at 25.
The only real issue here is that australia and Canada will never be Spanish speaking countries like the us will be
Ignoring entire districts within US urban centers that speak their home country's language and hardly a word of English, it's always some thirdy that gets his nerves struck.
The US has more native Spanish speakers than Spain and the second highest number of native Spanish speakers of any Hispanophone country in the world after Mexico.
We already are a Spanish-speaking country.
most hispanics i've met either speak english fluently or try their best, so i dont mind them. they can speak spanish however much they want as long as they can speak english too.
>australia and Canada will never be Spanish speaking countries like the us will be
Nah, they're be good Hindi speaking ones.
What the fuck is that? It looks modern but is sized like a german cabin scooter from the 50s.
Most Euros aren't 600lb judeo-mexican hybrids
US submarines look like shit. It's like a retard just put a lego block on a dildo and called it a day
>they also have a preference for midget sized cars etc
Bruh wut? Europe has normal cars. Japanese domestic market has the midget boxes. Only Burgeristan has retardedly huge trucks.
Dumbest thread on PrepHole
Actually, I don't think your question is serious but laughable.
Well gee, ever thought that maybe a ohio class has to carry ICBMs? Where are you going to put them on a sub that is scraping 70 meters in length? That's why SSNs are 100+ meters longer than SSKs, they have to carry a reactor and the launch bays.
OP is a dumb moron who thinks bigger is better like a child. Guess what, a huge sub is easier to spot and destroy, and there's little they can do about it
>That's why SSNs
>ICBM launch bays
Sounds like you're the dumb moron
>he isn't aware SSGNs exist
>SSGNs are SSNs
>SSGNs launch ICBMs
Are you autistic, anon? US SSBNs carry SLBMs so they need to be both long and tall, SSGNs are just SSBNs converted to carry VLS pods, and the Virginia class has VLS pods. All current US submarines have nuclear reactors which tend to make them fairly tall.
We can sit here all day and act like you got a "gotcha" on that dude by picking out the incorrect usage of the term ICBM or we can just acknowledge that all current US submarines are both long and thicc.
what do you mean, "act"?
you don't think it's important to differentiate between a submarine that carries a nuclear-capable ballistic missile, and a submarine that doesn't?
>all current US submarines are both long and thicc
and do I give a fuck? are current US SSNs the only kind of SSN?
You're goddamn right it's a big "gotcha". Because the post doesn't answer the question at all, doesn't even answer the question from a blinkered US-centric perspective, and has the temerity to act all smug and condescending about it. TALK SHIT GET HIT.
OK anon, I think you actually are autistic. That anon was providing the reason why US submarines in particular are large. He didn't outright say it but it's obvious based on his phrasing. No need to get your knickers in a twist over the Astute class.
>I think you actually are autistic
It's "autistic" to be able to tell the difference between an ICBM-armed submarine and not?
If you think it's "autistic" to be able to tell the difference between a Davy Crockett and a bazooka then.
>the reason why US submarines in particular are large
688s aren't big because they launch ICBMs.
>That anon was providing the reason why US submarines in particular are large. He didn't outright say it but it's obvious based on his phrasing
AND HE'S STILL WRONG
Half of this thread doesn't even know that SSN's carry ZERO SLBM's. Is this the power of neo-/k/
Because most european navys only have an interest in controlling the Baltic, european atlqnric coast/northsea and Med.
Nuclear is better, full stop. Building a conventional sub using the latest tech (ie, fuel cells) costs so much you may as well just build a nuke.
RN Vangaurds are pretty big aren't they? The Astutes are pretty big too..
Because Europe is 50 countries. USA is a one country.
Does that answer your question?
im proud of my country's new sub, not all nations are able to design and build their ships.
S-80 it’s a big boy
The vast majority of Australia's neighbors, including Indonesia, are opposed to AUKUS. pic related
They dont oppose shit, they expect NPT commitments to be followed and basic transparency. Australia already has the suppprt of the IAEA just by keeping them in the loop. These 2023 statments are an improvement on their 2021 statements which focused on muh arms race. If Malaysia and Indoneisa were "opposed" they would have supported China's resolution instead they stood by and watch china make an ass of themselves.
forgot pic related
The only one the least bit opposed against AUKUS are Indogs
Singapore is Australia's closest regional ally, the most they are is probably jealous
Most navies are costal in their operations so the need and cost of a large ocean crossing sub is not needed
Retard here, if we can have our navy subs run on small reactors why can’t we have the same reactors run small cities/towns/counties around the country? More efficient to have a big ass reactor power a large area?
Large reactors are more efficient and naval reactors use much higher (weapons grade) enrichment
>implying anyone cares about the opinions of Indonesians
They're not angry about submarines, they're terrified that said submarines will require the creation of an Australian nuclear industry and all the potential for nuclear weapons development that will bring.
>Australia's closest neighbor
This is a veiled threat. Please. Try something in Darwin. Fucking do it.
One country has fought a shooting war against the others in the region. It's not China.
Irrelevant Indog stay irrelevant
>Why not make a Pact
i could fix her bros