3 ms·

> The Connecticut alone carries enough torpedoes to destroy any other nation's entire nuclear submarine force. Nitpick, but isn't that a lot like saying "this

> The Connecticut alone carries enough torpedoes to destroy any other nation's entire nuclear submarine force. Nitpick, but isn't that a lot like saying "this magazine carries enough bullets to kill a whole platoon of soldiers"? I mean, it technically does, but only if they're all lined up in front of you and you never miss, which is almost certainly not true in real-world conditions. > This failure to intervene is probably the most egregious shortcoming of VMS. But it's notoriously awful along other dimensions. Here's some of what I remember, mixed in with conversations with folks more recently onboard: It seems like the military really ought to give the users of systems like this the ability to say "fuck no" and send it back after doing some user testing. Some of the issue identified are egregious and maybe the kind of thing that could get a submarine that's actually fighting sunk. I mean, it sounds like it's so bad it nearly got a submarine that was just cruising around sunk.

scottLobster 5y ago
Yeah, it sounds impressive until you realize that only 8 nations have more than a dozen submarines, and most nations have zero.
- handrous 5y ago
  Hell, if we assume one-hit-kills and no duds/misses, a mid-war German U-Boat probably qualifies for the same achievement, as far as sheer amount of ordnance carried. Not that WWII subs were any good at hunting other subs, but still. It's not really impressive or surprising that a sub would carry enough torpedoes to technically be able to sink all the nuclear subs of any non-US country.
- zauguin 5y ago
  It's even more restrictive since the statement is only about nuclear subs. I don't think that there are 8 nations with nuclear subs at all, let alone a dozen of them.
throwmamatrain 5y ago
Torpedos are not bullets, I don't think this is a good analogy.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Torpedos are not bullets, I don't think this is a good analogy. They aren't, but I'm sure there are operational complications to using them that make the analogy work (e.g. countermeasures).
  - throwmamatrain 5y ago
    I believe my point was that a modern torpedo hitting a ship is a very high kill probability (mobility or other), being it is guided and explosive. I would say a missile is more similar to a torpedo. We can look to the Falklands as to how dangerous missiles are against ships. This isn't your grandfathers WWII torpedo. There is only one other case of an anti-ship missile I can think of off hand, in Desert Storm when a Silkworm was shot at a fleet and shot down with a SeaRAM(?) I think. I am surprised at the downvotes, but I guess also not. Either way, the information is out there. I agree with the article in that military software is generally awful, but I'm guessing it is not easy to innovate.
- KineticLensman 5y ago
  > Torpedos are not bullets, I don't think this is a good analogy. The point of the analogy is that the enemy platoon / nuclear submarine force would need be to be located and behave in a way that allowed a single shooter to wipe them all out almost simultaneously. This is particularly unlikely for submarines, especially nuclear-armed ones.
  - handrous 5y ago
    > especially nuclear-armed ones. I took "nuclear sub" to mean "nuclear powered" (as opposed to e.g. diesel-electric, which are still fairly common), which I think represents a somewhat larger set of submarines, outside the US, than just the set of all non-US "boomer" (nuclear-armed) subs. That is, attack subs without nuke-tipped missiles can still be nuclear subs because they have a nuke plant onboard for power.
FridayoLeary 5y ago
i think the author is trying more to highlight the importance of the submarine by mentioning it's singular capabilities.
jwithington 5y ago
I do think that's a fair critique of my analogy on the firepower of a Seawolf class submarine. I'm trying to relay that it's exceedingly deadly submarine. The best in the world. The envy of all other submarine classes. I don't think there are fighter aircraft that carry enough missiles to down an entire country's bomber force. The Seawolf was made to destroy other ships. It has all the stats and capabilities to do it. But the kicker is it has incredibly bad navigation software.
- mLuby 5y ago
  That's reasonable. Sloppier would've been: "The Connecticut alone could destroy any other nation's entire nuclear submarine force."
  - jwithington 5y ago
    Well, the design requirements for the Seawolf class were actually probably something like this! Basically the Navy wanted a monster that go deep behind Soviet lines and tear things up before they made it out of the backyard. "[Seawolf's] emphasis on fast tactical search speeds and a massive torpedo magazine were reflections of its design mission, which was to independently search for and kill Soviet submarines in the relatively confined and target rich northern waters of the Soviet Arctic littoral." [1] [1] https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=newport-papers https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
- quesera 5y ago
  I read it with the opposite meaning: > The Connecticut alone carries enough torpedoes to destroy any other nation's entire nuclear submarine force. The Connecticut uniquely carries enough torpedoes to destroy... vs. The Connecticut carries enough torpedoes to single-handedly destroy...

scottLobster 5y ago

Yeah, it sounds impressive until you realize that only 8 nations have more than a dozen submarines, and most nations have zero.

handrous 5y ago
Hell, if we assume one-hit-kills and no duds/misses, a mid-war German U-Boat probably qualifies for the same achievement, as far as sheer amount of ordnance carried. Not that WWII subs were any good at hunting other subs, but still. It's not really impressive or surprising that a sub would carry enough torpedoes to technically be able to sink all the nuclear subs of any non-US country.
zauguin 5y ago
It's even more restrictive since the statement is only about nuclear subs. I don't think that there are 8 nations with nuclear subs at all, let alone a dozen of them.

throwmamatrain 5y ago

Torpedos are not bullets, I don't think this is a good analogy.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Torpedos are not bullets, I don't think this is a good analogy. They aren't, but I'm sure there are operational complications to using them that make the analogy work (e.g. countermeasures).
- throwmamatrain 5y ago
  I believe my point was that a modern torpedo hitting a ship is a very high kill probability (mobility or other), being it is guided and explosive. I would say a missile is more similar to a torpedo. We can look to the Falklands as to how dangerous missiles are against ships. This isn't your grandfathers WWII torpedo. There is only one other case of an anti-ship missile I can think of off hand, in Desert Storm when a Silkworm was shot at a fleet and shot down with a SeaRAM(?) I think. I am surprised at the downvotes, but I guess also not. Either way, the information is out there. I agree with the article in that military software is generally awful, but I'm guessing it is not easy to innovate.
KineticLensman 5y ago
> Torpedos are not bullets, I don't think this is a good analogy. The point of the analogy is that the enemy platoon / nuclear submarine force would need be to be located and behave in a way that allowed a single shooter to wipe them all out almost simultaneously. This is particularly unlikely for submarines, especially nuclear-armed ones.
- handrous 5y ago
  > especially nuclear-armed ones. I took "nuclear sub" to mean "nuclear powered" (as opposed to e.g. diesel-electric, which are still fairly common), which I think represents a somewhat larger set of submarines, outside the US, than just the set of all non-US "boomer" (nuclear-armed) subs. That is, attack subs without nuke-tipped missiles can still be nuclear subs because they have a nuke plant onboard for power.

FridayoLeary 5y ago

i think the author is trying more to highlight the importance of the submarine by mentioning it's singular capabilities.

jwithington 5y ago

I do think that's a fair critique of my analogy on the firepower of a Seawolf class submarine. I'm trying to relay that it's exceedingly deadly submarine. The best in the world. The envy of all other submarine classes. I don't think there are fighter aircraft that carry enough missiles to down an entire country's bomber force. The Seawolf was made to destroy other ships. It has all the stats and capabilities to do it. But the kicker is it has incredibly bad navigation software.

mLuby 5y ago
That's reasonable. Sloppier would've been: "The Connecticut alone could destroy any other nation's entire nuclear submarine force."
- jwithington 5y ago
  Well, the design requirements for the Seawolf class were actually probably something like this! Basically the Navy wanted a monster that go deep behind Soviet lines and tear things up before they made it out of the backyard. "[Seawolf's] emphasis on fast tactical search speeds and a massive torpedo magazine were reflections of its design mission, which was to independently search for and kill Soviet submarines in the relatively confined and target rich northern waters of the Soviet Arctic littoral." [1] [1] https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=newport-papers https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl...
quesera 5y ago
I read it with the opposite meaning: > The Connecticut alone carries enough torpedoes to destroy any other nation's entire nuclear submarine force. The Connecticut uniquely carries enough torpedoes to destroy... vs. The Connecticut carries enough torpedoes to single-handedly destroy...