3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThat's reasonable. Sloppier would've been: "The Connecticut alone could destroy any other nation's entire nuclear submarine force."
- jwithington 5y agoWell, 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 agoI 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...