Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Arguing for Submarines, The Advanced Course

The Periscope of HMAS Farncomb, on the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) off Hawaii, moments after a successful Sink Exercise (SINKEX) at RIMPAC 2012. HMAS Farncomb fired a Mark 48 Torpedo into the hull of former US Navy Ship Kilauea striking the ship below the bridge. The hulk broke in two and sank. Mid caption: Australia is one of 22 nations attending RIMPAC that includes six submarines, 40 surface ships and an aircraft carrier participating in a realistic maritime warfare scenario. Australian soldiers from 1 RAR are also participating in the amphibious aspect of the exercise, alongside US Marines. RAAF AP-3C Orions and a Wedgetail are also providing air support. Link
Submarines and Maritime Strategy - part 1. When was the last time you read an argument for submarines like that from a US Navy officer of any rank in the context of maritime strategy?

No seriously, that wasn't a rhetorical question, I'm curious when the last time was and what the article was, so I can go read it.

That's a pretty impressive post Justin. I actually sympathize with Nic Stuart, because I have made some arguments on this blog more than a few times that resulted in a Navy Captain response that made me feel really foolish. If Nic didn't feel that way after your post, he may need to read it again.

blog comments powered by Disqus

site stats