The Opening of Parliament (MPs Only) - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

This is a the archive of the "PoFo Parliament". A user-run project.
Forum rules: This is a the archive of the "PoFo Parliament". A user-run project.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13051280
I think we should make these German subs under license in our shipyards.

How many?

I was thinking of two flotillas of six, one squadron stationed at our main naval base on the East Island and the other with our conventional subs at the former US base in New Clauswitz. The improvements needed to the East Island Base will provide much needed employment, as will building the submarines themselves.

Estimated cost:

Submarine Facility East Island Naval Base $578 million

Submarine Facility New Clauswitz Naval Base $80 million

2 Hybrid AIP/ diesel electric submarines + spares, weapons, crew training, maintenance familiarisation courses etc $1 billion


Ist year spend - $1.9 billion

2nd year spend - $1.8 billion

3rd/4th year spend - $1.5 billion

Total cost for 4 year programme - approx $7 billion
Last edited by ingliz on 03 Jun 2009 17:12, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#13051335
By station, you mean home port while the subs are out in the waters - yes?
User avatar
By ingliz
#13051339
Yes, and I've prepared a provisional procurement budget based on the initial study.

FallenRaptor, the Defence Minister, should have the exact figures sometime next week. We are wrapping up negotiations with Dave and the German manufacturers very shortly and then we should be able to offer the package for approval by the House.
Last edited by ingliz on 03 Jun 2009 17:21, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By MB.
#13051351
For the record the complete modernization of the USS Iowa in 1984 cost only 500 million and equipped the super-dreadnought with four x four AGM-84 Harpoon launchers, four x eight BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles, and four point defense guns plus an entirely new suite of electronics, RADAR, and fire control, etc.

Presumably the ship could be purchased, re-modernized and re-commissioned for even less than the 1984 price-tag.

Will someone please explain to me why the communists want to spend 7 billion dollars over four years to build 12 totally inadequate attack submarines?
User avatar
By ingliz
#13051361
MB:

One of my submarines could sink your battleship with 2 heavy torpedoes and you wouldn't even know it was there until they hit.

What damned use is your refurbished USS Iowa?
User avatar
By MB.
#13051366
One of my submarines could sink your battleship with 2 heavy torpedoes and you wouldn't even know it was there until they hit.


What exactly is a 'heavy torpedo' and how would your diesel electric submarines possibly get close enough to the PoFo republic fleet flagship to engage it?

Furthermore, you will find your submarines totally inadequate for, I don't know, protecting our sea-lanes of communication, or threatening the borders of other nations.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13051383
Their job is not to threaten the borders of other states, though they could if we had nuclear weapons, but to defend our shores from a maritime threat. Getting in range is easy, they are virtually undetectable and can operate in as little as 17 metres of water if needs be.

Heavy torpedoes are large 21" diameter weapons designed to sink large ships, our tubes are 650mm and capable of firing either cruise missiles or heavy torpedoes

What is this battleship going to be used for?
Last edited by ingliz on 03 Jun 2009 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By MB.
#13051389
defend our shores from a maritime threat


What type of threat do you expect to encounter?

they are virtually undetectable


I think you should read up some more on the capabilities of diesel electric boats vis-a-vis modern ASW kit.

can operate in as little as 17 metres of water if needs be.


That's good but the Iowa has a draft of only 11 meters.

What is this battleship going to be used for?


Looking badass. Nuking anyone who gets in our way. Gunboat diplomacy. Fleet-in-being. Controlling sea-lanes of communication.
User avatar
By ingliz
#13051394
Our only real threat is the US and its lapdog the British
User avatar
By MB.
#13051398
And 12 diesel electric submarines will not be able to defend our island communications against either of those navies. So why do you want to build them?
User avatar
By ingliz
#13051413
Any surface fleet we build could not stand up to the US Navy but Americans don't like taking casualties. My submarines are quite capable of sinking a Nimitz class carrier and easily have the range to engage them.

ASW and hybrid AIP/Diesel electric submarines

The US Navy leased a Swedish type for evaluation, let it loose in the exercise area, and then tried to find it. They lost it for the full 27 days it could remain submerged.
User avatar
By MB.
#13051424
My submarines are quite capable of sinking a Nimitz class carrier


It would be pretty remarkable if your 20 man submarines could sneak past the entire fleet defenses of a USN battle group and straight up sink a 100,000 ton nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

Any surface fleet we build could not stand up to the US Navy


Well that's not necessarily true, but yes, in principle it would be very difficult to build any navy that could successfully wrest command of the sea from the USN or a possible USN/RN/NATO alliance.
User avatar
By Dave
#13051426
ingliz wrote:Our only real threat is the US and its lapdog the British

In the short term. In the long term the geopolitical picture grows murkier and we could be vulnerable to other powers.

Two flotillas of AIP submarines is a good start. I would suggest a competitive evaluation between the latest AIP types from France, Germany, Sweden, and Russia. After that, we should produce at least two flotillas. For the surface fleet I see no reason to have anything larger than frigates, and most of our surface fleet should consist of fast patrol craft (armed with ASMs and small cannons), mine layers, mine sweepers, and corvettes. A small carrier to carry helicopters and STOL aircraft for long-range maritime patrol and ASW is desirable but not necessary given our relatively limited funds.

MB wrote:It would be pretty remarkable if your 20 man submarines could sneak past the entire fleet defenses of a USN battle group and straight up sink a 100,000 ton nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

It wouldn't surprise me at all given how carelessly the USN treats ASW these days. They no longer even have fixed-wing ASW aircraft in CVBGs.

Our defense would also not consist of only submarines, but mines, land-based aircraft, and even saturation barrages of unguided missiles.

MB wrote:Well that's not necessarily true, but yes, in principle it would be very difficult to build any navy that could successfully wrest command of the sea from the USN or a possible USN/RN/NATO alliance.

Our goal is to make any campaign against us so costly than prospective enemies wouldn't even consider it.
User avatar
By MB.
#13051427
They no longer even have fixed-wing ASW aircraft in CVBGs.


Towed sonar arrays and UAVs sort of make ASW aircraft redundant.

Our goal is to make any campaign against us so costly than prospective enemies wouldn't even consider it.


Then you want a powerful nuclear capable/deterrence fleet. USS Iowa is the cheapest way to start along those lines.
User avatar
By Dave
#13051437
MB. wrote:Towed sonar arrays and UAVs sort of make ASW aircraft redundant.

Not if you want long-range, better detection (UAVs have a poor record), and the ability to drop sonobuoys far away. Not to mention the ability to attack submarines from the air with weapons like homing torpedoes.

MB. wrote:Then you want a powerful nuclear capable/deterrence fleet. USS Iowa is the cheapest way to start along those lines.

Nuclear weapons are governed by various treaties and pursuing nuclear weapons will make us a pariah state. And sorry, while the USS Iowa is formidable, what possible good is it for naval warfare aside from its complement of Harpoons?
User avatar
By MB.
#13051459
And sorry, while the USS Iowa is formidable, what possible good is it for naval warfare aside from its complement of Harpoons?


Well unless you hadn't noticed it is equipped with 9 16 inch guns, a broadside powerful enough to sink any warship or near surface submarine currently afloat (out to a range of ~ 40 km). Furthermore that is an all weather armament impervious to electronic warfare or anti-missile defense.
User avatar
By Dave
#13051472
MB. wrote:Well unless you hadn't noticed it is equipped with 9 16 inch guns, a broadside powerful enough to sink any warship or near surface submarine currently afloat (out to a range of ~ 40 km). Furthermore that is an all weather armament impervious to electronic warfare or anti-missile defense.

How is that armament at all useful when confronted with modern long-range weapons? Granted, modern ASMs aren't powerful enough to sink the Iowa, but if you keep firing them I'm sure one will get lucky. And it would hardly be a challenge for an aircraft to drop a laser-guided bomb down the funnel stack or a bunker buster through the armored deck.
User avatar
By Dave
#13051504
MB. wrote:Works like this: fleet escorts shoot down in-coming fighters and missiles.

Dubious, especially since they can be sunk as well.

MB. wrote: Iowa moves into range and blows target out of water with one or two salvoes.

Why would they allow it to close within firing range in the first place?
User avatar
By MB.
#13051513
Why would they allow it to close within firing range in the first place?


Well obviously our hypothetical opponent will resit the inevitable move to firing range furiously, which is why of course the target will be attacked with missiles (or torpedoes or aircraft) before the range is closed to the decisive point.

Remember, the Iowa is just the flagship: a well protected, well armed, fast fleet ship capable of carrying and protecting vital members of state, as well as providing a robust and proven platform from which to plan and launch diverse attacks (with missiles, shells, UAVs, and so on).
User avatar
By Demosthenes
#13052255
Alright, as lulztastic as all that two pages of fun was, let's bring this thing back to order. The thread is now appropriately labeled. However, I am granting MB permission to address us on the issue thus far.

At this point though I suspect a simple call for a voice vote will solve the issue quickly,

By a show of ayes or nays, who is in favor (in principle) of attempting to purchase the Iowa?

I vote Nay.

Should MB fail to get three Aye votes, or two not counting his own, the discussion should be tabled for now or moved to it's private room for any further discussion.

Ingliz is technically correct though, in that non-MPs should not be holding debate here. Still, if the debate is constuctive and so forth I see no reason to be militant about it. My only apprehension is that MB is taking the piss with this whole thing. :eek: :lol: Meaning, if true...GTFO!!! :muha1:
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]