TexasCHLforum.com

fickman wrote:It would be funnier if it didn't take until the end of the article for me to realize this is a satire site. It was a little too believable.

.

http://www.duffelblog.com/about?fromt=yes

Well, now you know....Duffelblog is like a military Onion.

ScottDLS wrote:Weren't the P-3 squadrons pretty good at finding Soviet subs? And the Helos with the dipping sonar? When I was in the Navy the sub guys told us the only ones that ever had a chance of finding our SSBN's were our own attack boats and even that was rare. My first ship was a guided missile destroyer. Only thing our active sonar was good for was messing with whales!

Soviet nukes in the old days were notoriously noisy....I don't know about the new ones. That said, if true about the P-3s (and I have reason for skepticism), there may have been other reasons for that success that may still be classified, so I'm reluctant to mention them. Diesel boats are another story. But your active sonar wasn't just good for messing with whales, it would be a big help to any sub wanting a good fire control solution before releasing torpedoes.

All that said, the first problem is determining a sub is in the general area as opposed to somewhere in the ocean. This probably isn't the place to get into anti-sub warfare ops and I'm probably not current anyway. But I think everyone can agree that it's going to be a lot easier to detect a big ship on the surface than a submarine, since you can actually see ships on the surface. And once detected they're also going to be easier to hit. A surface battle against the Ruskies or Chicoms isn't going to be like the gun duels of WW2. The British experience in the Falklands should have been instructive but so far as I can tell seeing the "Littoral" ships being produced these days, it wasn't.

ScottDLS wrote:All US Navy ships begin with the initials USS, not SS. This is is an old one that's been circulating for several years now...

It's on the Duffleblog so it should be obvious satire. Mabus has been SecNav and destroying the navy since 2009 so it had to be written since then.

anygunanywhere wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

Abraham wrote:If there are no guns, it's not a war ship.

It's a target...

When I was in the Navy, submarines were the targets for our ASW squadron.

Nice try skimmer.

He's right though...thing is, you have to find a target before you can shoot at it. I admit, they sometimes found us rather easily once we popped up to periscope depth and radioed them a bearing.

These days the surface fleet is a bunch of floating coffins if there are ever any naval battles against the kind of enemies who have both subs and lots of cruise missiles. And a littoral is literally the worst floating death trap.

rtschl wrote:

VMI77 wrote:Haven't you heard...guns or no guns, there are only two types of ships, submarines, and targets.

I thought submarines are classified as a boat not a ship.

A rose by any other name doesn't change the fact that all those objects floating on the surface are targets, a fact even more relevant now then when the phrase was first uttered.

dhoobler wrote:This ship should be sent to the waters off the coast of Somalia to protect civilian ships from pirates.

Too late...you must have missed this:

UPDATE: Since this story first appeared, Giffords has reportedly been hijacked at gunpoint from its pier at Austal USA’s shipyard. The City of Mobile Police Department is asking anybody with information about the theft to contact the department’s Crime Stoppers line at 251-555-7000.

Abraham wrote:If there are no guns, it's not a war ship.

It's a target...

Haven't you heard...guns or no guns, there are only two types of ships, submarines, and targets.

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/06/uss-g ... -gun-free/

MOBILE, Ala. — Seeking to honor a retired congresswoman and 2011 shooting victim in the most considerate and respectful way possible, the Navy today christened the future USS Gabrielle Giffords (LCS-10), a first-of-its-kind, gun-free warship.

“Having this mighty warship be 100% gun-free not only helps to honor its heroic namesake, Gabby Giffords, but it also helps the Navy to steer clear of promoting a culture of violence,” said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, who reportedly lobbied hard to get Congress and the Secretary of Defense on board with leaving the Navy’s newest addition to the fleet completely defenseless.

“Once commissioned and put into service,” Mabus continued, “this vessel will truly embody the Navy’s new motto of Semper Modestis— always considerate.”

“We have this whole new generation of millennials joining the Navy and becoming sailors on a daily basis, and most of them don’t even like guns,” he said. “So it’s important we listen to their concerns and do what we can to adapt to them.”

Mabus also said that going gun-free with the Giffords was a huge cost saver, and that much of the money saved on armament for the vessel was able to be redirected to a vegan-friendly galley, unisex uniforms for the whole crew, and numerous “safe spaces” throughout the ship — places where sailors can go to relax and decompress whenever they feel overly-stressed by the rigors of life at sea.

What makes it even funnier is that given the insanity of "progressives" it's not entirely implausible.