Navy explores longer sub deployments

[Pete]

Navy explores longer sub deployments

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/ap/business/main20113948.shtml

"(AP) GROTON, Conn. — The Navy is considering lengthening the standard deployment of attack submarines beyond six months as it faces rising demands with a fleet that has been shrinking since the end of the Cold War, the commander of American submarine forces told The Associated Press in an interview...................."

I'd say "And so it begins" but it done began.

Cutting the 20 year retirement will have recruits signing up for submarine duty in droves.

[abc_123]

but they are making them co-ed, so that should help.;)

[Susa]

I was thinking that if marketed correctly, these longer sub deployments could become the new fabulous "gay cruise" for the Navy.

[The Reaper]

They will still have to port regularly to put the pregnant females off.

That will not be reported.

TR

[wet dog]

What's cheaper to manage, (2) at 180 days or (3) at 121 days at sea, or (1) per year?

[Pete]

What's cheaper to manage, (2) at 180 days or (3) at 121 days at sea, or (1) per year?

1 for five years would be cheapest.

All kidding aside it gets into stretching the force. In the future will some patrols be canceled because the required boat is in maintenance?

A lot of countries are upgrading their diesel sub force.

Gets into the funding we were talking about for aircraft.

Should we go back to smaller diesel boats for routine stuff and save the nukes for the high speed stuff?

Look at all the money we are saving by giving space to the Chicoms.

One of these days they might have a space station armed with nukes parked over Iowa.

[Richard]

Under the terms of START and the SALT 2 agreements, I think we still have to have our boats in specified ports at specified dates/times for verification which might make it tough for the schedulers.

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin