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.