Re: How to sink the US and Israeli navies



On 23 Jan 2007 06:53:18 -0800, "Jack Linthicum"
<jacklinthicum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Peter Skelton wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 04:55:35 GMT, fairwater@xxxxxxxxx (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

"BlackBeard" <spk_gbv@xxxxxxx> wrote:


Derek Lyons wrote:
"BlackBeard" <spk_gbv@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The uninformed crowd that keeps screaming for AIP/Conventional boats
always want to base their rants on the size of the boat in the
littorals, ignoring the fact we have had nuclear boats as small, and
smaller than the standard conventional hulls, and have operated in the
littorals for fifty years.

Correction: We *HAD* nuclear boats almost as small

That's what I said "we have had" No correction necessary.

The discussion is if we are going to build a whole new class of boats
for littoral areas, (not our own waters, but places lke the gulf) which
is better, a small nuke or a small AIP.

I say a small nuke wholeheartedly - but the real question is whether
or not the USN/DoD and Congress would be willing to pay for a class of
boats that would be second rate right out of the box.

I thought the VIrginias were smaller-cheaper than the Seawolves
(Seawolfs?)

It's an interesting question. The frigates are clearly
second-rate compared to the destroyers, but they remain useful
ships.


Peter Skelton

I don't see any significant difference in size between the LA, the VA
and the Seawolf

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/nssn.htm


According to your reference SEAWOLF is 32% bigger than LA (JIMMY
CARTER is larger than that) and VIRGINIA 86% of SEAWOLF (or 13%
larger than LA). That proves my statement, I doubt I could find
anyting more conclusive if I searched for it.


Peter Skelton
.