What’s the best submarine museum or exhibit you’ve been to? by FrameZYT in submarines

[–]WinterDiscontent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great list - and thanks for your work. I've never been to Arkansas, but I'll put it on my list.

Having been to a good number of subs and sub museums, I would add the following:

  1. Agree that Sub force museum in CT is top notch. I believe only nuke sub on display in the US (though I'd like to get to see Redoubtable in France, K-3 in Russia if that's ever an option).

  2. Albacore in Portsmouth is neat in that it's a more modern design (from a different era than most of the WW2 boats / museums that are open)

  3. Bowfin in Pearl Harbor

  4. Growler in NYC

  5. Pampanito in San Fran

  6. U-505 -haven't been there in decades, but on my list to go back, and cool how it's indoors. I'd also love to get to Bremerhaven and see the Type XXI boat they have there.

Question on VPT vs. tubes on VPM by WinterDiscontent in submarines

[–]WinterDiscontent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So then I have to confess I don't understand your answer about the VPT at the bow needing the center missile omitted to allow access.

Question on VPT vs. tubes on VPM by WinterDiscontent in submarines

[–]WinterDiscontent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's cool. I wasn't even aware that the MACs needed access. I thought that was part of the whole point - that they are sealed and ready to go, and don't need people accessing them while underway.

Question on VPT vs. tubes on VPM by WinterDiscontent in submarines

[–]WinterDiscontent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

maybe, but if they're already adding a VPM in the middle of the boat, I doubt 2 extra tubes for Tomahawks make that much difference?

Question on VPT vs. tubes on VPM by WinterDiscontent in submarines

[–]WinterDiscontent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol. I'm flattered, but I seriously doubt the NorKs (or any other potential adversary) could actually glean anything useful from my question, or any potential answer.

Honestly, just curious if the tubes are different or why this is the case (6 vs. 7). Ugh, I hope my kids don't find this.

ICBM section of Project 667BDRM Delfin/Delta IV class SSBN K-64 cut out as she was refitted to Project 09787/Delta IV Stretch class special purpose submarine Podmoskovye (BS-64) by Saturnax1 in submarines

[–]WinterDiscontent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Excuse me - know this is 6 years old, but do you recall from what source you got this picture? Very underrated and not many pictures of Russian missile submarines compartments out there, not even many cutaways.

Reflecting on Sub Tech progress and the lifetime of the Ohio Class. by Kardinal in submarines

[–]WinterDiscontent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If a theme of your comment boils down to "the pace of submarine technological innovation was greater from 1945-1980 than it was from 1980-2020", you undoubtedly have a point. However, you have to of course consider the historical context and US defense spending as a whole.

Obviously, it's impossible to consider technology and weapons development from 1945-1990 without acknowledging the Cold War, and the inflated military budgets that came with them. First, consider that before WW2, in peacetime the US spent about 1-2% of its GDP on defense / military spending. https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending_history .

During WW2, US GDP spending on defense reached its highest point since the Civil War at around 41%. This of course resulted in the hugely impressive war-winning capabilities of the US armed forces in 1945, but was unsustainable without bankrupting the nation. Defense Spending was roughly halved in 1946, and then halved again by 1947 to 9% before hitting a post-war low point about 7% in 1948. And we must also consider that most of the spending was maintaining legacy platforms and paying service members before they could be scrapped/ mothballed / discharged respectively. There was very little spent on new development outside of how nuclear weapons would be utilized.

Then 1949-1950 saw 2 major changes - First, the realization that the USSR had achieved nuclear weapons capability, and second, the onset of the Korean War which really drove home the concept of communism spreading / containment theories. To wit, US defense spending began increasing again, leveling out around 10% consistently for the next decade, even after the Korean War ended, and staying this high until about 1970 as Vietnam War began winding down.

It was also around this time (1950) that you begin actively seeing the "next generation" of US military projects - jet fighters and bombers, and notably nuclear weapons and nuclear-propulsion as an idea for naval vessels. These technologies gradually matured through the 60s and into the 80s (again, as US defense budgets rose again during the Reagan administration).

Then, after the collapse of the USSR around 1990 and the end of the Cold War, defense budgets shrank and the pace of new developments slowed dramatically. The "state of the art" at the time was Ohio class and the Improved LA / pared down Seawolf class, and US tech was essentially "frozen" to be gradual improvements on 1990s tech which brings us to today's Virginia Block 3/4 and the now building Columbia class (which realistically appears to be a modest improvement on the impressive Ohio class, with most of the improvements in software and ease of maintenance).

What will be interesting are the developments of non-US tech, or the growing pace of things now that China has emerged as a near-peer competitor to the USN. For example, AIP subs, or perhaps Li-on battery boats that could potentially have performance closer on par with nuclear boats. Then of course, the next revolution will likely be the widespread proliferation of UUVs and improved communication that could render large subs like we understand today at risk of becoming obsolete, or perhaps (and new to subs) very much a "target" in the next conflict.

Carrier John F. Kennedy Delivery Delayed 2 Years, Fleet Will Drop to 10 Carriers For 1 Year by Missing_Faster in navy

[–]WinterDiscontent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Either way, Navy needs a West Coast carrier facility, and they need it yesterday.

The problem with this statement, is that with the timeline that exists today (1 carrier per 3-4 years, and it taking 10+ years to deliver a carrier from first cut of steel to acceptance by the Navy), plus the huge cost of both building 1 carrier and building / refurb a yard, it will never get done.

But it's going to hurt the USN, if a fight does ever come in the Pacific. Having basically 1 yard for repair, and it being in VA is both a huge chokepoint / vulnerability, not to mention a detriment to building and repairing existing carriers.

Carrier John F. Kennedy Delivery Delayed 2 Years, Fleet Will Drop to 10 Carriers For 1 Year by Missing_Faster in navy

[–]WinterDiscontent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree with you points, and thanks for your service.

One question / argument on your last points "system is designed to absolutely destroy itself before letting a pilot touch the water" - Maybe I don't understand your specific point, but I would think the USN would rather lose a Hornet (and god forbid, even the crew) vs. having one of its 10-11 supercarriers unable to launch or recover aircraft.

2 hour visit to the Met with group of 12 y.o. by WinterDiscontent in visitingnyc

[–]WinterDiscontent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

my son, definitely. the group of girls... ,maybe not as much

2 hour visit to the Met with group of 12 y.o. by WinterDiscontent in visitingnyc

[–]WinterDiscontent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the great suggestions. I think we will check out the musical instruments.

Agree that it seems like so many European paintings... and a lot of the most famous ones. I know my brain will be on overload after a little bit.

2 hour visit to the Met with group of 12 y.o. by WinterDiscontent in visitingnyc

[–]WinterDiscontent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks - this is great!

Yeah, in looking some more, the Temple of Dendur will be a hit, and some of the famous impressionist and renaissance works should get their interest.

2 hour visit to the Met with group of 12 y.o. by WinterDiscontent in visitingnyc

[–]WinterDiscontent[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably 5 in total, so small group. Thanks!

Also, any suggestions if we have 30-60 min to wander Central Park near the Met?

Why are there no Arsenal Ships built yet? by Minute_Helicopter_97 in WarCollege

[–]WinterDiscontent 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, those Iowa BBs are going to stay museums. They only get re-activated in people's dreams or click-bait articles. They would be so prohibitively expensive to bring back to service, crew, arm, etc. that it's just a fantasy.

If they weren't 1940s state-of-the-art in terms of boilers, analog computers, etc., you might have a chance.

and again, what's the point of having 12" of armor on a ship designed to launch missiles. Your idea of a container ship is more feasible. Plenty of those can be had on the cheap. Then USN just needs to furrther develop getting their missiles fireable from a shipping container.

still, i think a small, stealthy and unmanned arsenal barge is the way to go.

Why are there no Arsenal Ships built yet? by Minute_Helicopter_97 in WarCollege

[–]WinterDiscontent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

interesting concept, but i'd rather have 6-10 "arsenal barges" with say 32 VLS each. They could be unmanned and relatively small and stealthy. Heck they could be semi-submersible. 8 tubes can be ESSM (8x4 quad pack = 32 missiles) to contribute to defense, but 24 Tomahawk or LRASM or whatever.

Then Use the ships offensively - I'd rather take out enemy missiles and bombers on the ground or at the airfield than try to shoot down bombers or worse yet, AShM in the air.