Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Ansat-U_taking_off_2.jpg

Ansat-U_taking_off_1.jpg

Ansat-U_taking_off.jpg

KAMAZ-65225.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





How good are Japanese submarines?

This is a discussion on How good are Japanese submarines? within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Crusader2000 Well, first the the material is not classified and its common knowledge that SSK's easily sink ...


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old January 4th, 2006   #46
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 12,294
Threads:
Re: How good are Japanese submarines?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusader2000
Well, first the the material is not classified and its common knowledge that SSK's easily sink USN CBG during Exercises. (i.e. RIMPAC) To I can't comment on it without leaking "Top Secret Information on the Acoustics Signatures of USN Submarines" ! So, what is it???
The end game results of RIMPAC re sub strikes have been in the Public Domain - and they have been in various commentaries of Proceedings and the NSL - so what is it you don't understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusader2000
Yet, respectfully you have not answer my questions with any real substantial information?
and as clearly stated - I am not going to go into detail about acoustic differences on US subs - are you being pernicious? what detailed info do you think should be made available to you beyond public comment by SecNav and CINCPAC?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusader2000
More opinion than any hard facts? According to your comments here. A small fleet of quiet SSK's could hold the world at bay or at least the USN!
where the heck did you read that out of any of my comments? - what has been clearly delivered are statements of fact from known events. The fact that you cannot comprehend why they've been said - and the reason for being oblique indicates a failure to either listen or an attempt to be contrary. The threat issues about conventionals have been raised by CINCPAC and SecNav quite frequently - are you telling me that you think that they have no idea what is on the USN's operational and technical threat matrix?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crusader2000
and closing off with emoticons like the above demonstrate a paucity of maturity - not capability.

for someone who has invested in Proceedings - then you seem to lack some very basic comprehension about Naval Exercises and Naval Warfare in particular.

As for this subject - it's been exhausted and you're offering nothing of substance beyond a demonstration of an ability to be contrary about subject specifics.

Thread Closed pending Mod Discussion over re-opening.

It would be worth your while to lift the standard of your responses - to date you've been singularly unimpressive by failing to comprehend some basic issues. Being a smart arse won't see you last long with me. I have little patience for trolls - and I'd hate to see you added to the short list of other notables who thought that participation was based on being argumentative while demonstrating a complete lack of ability to listen to what and why things are being said.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

Last edited by gf0012-aust; January 4th, 2006 at 01:08 AM.
gf0012-aust is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:00 AM.