NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Submarines Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Oz Opts For A Dirty Dozen

May 6, 2009: Australia has decided to make the submarine the key component of its fleet. Over the next decade, Australia will double the number of subs in service, from six to twelve. This will mean that more than half (12 out of 23)of their  major warships will be subs. What is remarkable about this is the relative isolation of the submarine sailors within the Australian navy. Because of that, and the smaller crews of subs, few submarine officers achieved high rank in the navy. But the admirals have come to recognize, for all that, the submarine is the best warship for Australia's needs (defense against a superior surface fleet, or enemy subs seeking to blockade the nation).

Currently, the Australian Navy has six Collins class subs, and the sailors who serve on these boats are not happy. This has been a problem for years. Recently, the navy surveyed the submarine sailors and were told that the submarine crewmen felt unappreciated and overworked. Half of them were getting out of the navy as soon as their current enlistments were up. Many found the work boring, and felt they spent too much time at sea.  As a result, only enough qualified sailors are available to provide crews for three of the six Collins class subs. Each boat requires a crew of 45 highly trained sailors (eight of them officers.)

The initial navy response was to offer large cash bonuses to get existing submarine sailors to stay in the navy, and to attract qualified recruits to serve on subs. This helped a bit, but at the expense of officer morale. The bonuses increased sailors annual pay by up to $38,000, which meant officers were now making less than many of the men they commanded. Worse yet, not enough new recruits were attracted. The submarine service has high standards, thus many of those who were interested, were not qualified to undertake the long training courses. The global recession may help, because the Australian economy has been booming, providing many opportunities for the kind of guys who would qualify for the submarine service.

The Australian navy has been suffering from a serious geek shortage for several years now. With a total strength of 13,000, being short a few dozen people in some job categories can have serious repercussions, and that's what happened to the submarine force. For example, the navy is short about a third of the marine engineering officers it needs. There are less serious shortages in officers specializing in electrical systems and weapons systems. Australian warships have been active in the war on terror, resulting in many crews being away from home for up to six months at a time. There are shortages of both officers and sailors with technical skills.

The situation was further complicated by a booming economy, and big demand for those with engineering degrees, and a few years of experience. This made it easy for engineering officers to leave the navy and get a higher paying, and more comfortable, civilian job. The navy  responded with cash bonuses, better living and working conditions, and other fringe benefits. But the submarine force cannot have their working conditions improved much. While the subs are of modern design and recent construction, they are still subs. That means not much space or privacy in there.

All Western navies have similar problems, and have applied similar solutions, with some degree of success. U.S. subs have the advantage of being larger (because of the nuclear propulsion) and with larger crews (nearly three times the size of the Collins class boats). This apparently helps. Other nations have small, modern, diesel-electric boats like the Collins class, but do not send them off on long voyages. Australia can't avoid the long voyages, because Australia is surrounded by vast oceans areas, that require a lot of time to traverse. It is boring to transit all of that, and that was exactly what the dispirited sailors reported when asked.

The navy leadership has, in deciding to double the size of its sub fleet, agreed to either fix the morale and recruiting problems, or risk seeing most of those boats rarely going to sea, and manned by inexperienced crews when they did. The solution appears to be a combination of more pay, and using larger crews, so that everyone does not have to spend so much time at sea, or carry more people on cruises and reduce the workload for each. Another option is having two crews for each boat, a practice long used for American SSBNs (ballistic missile subs) and some surface ships. Another solution is the larger size of the next class of subs, that will provide, literally, more living room.

The current Collins class boats were built in Australia during the 1990s, and are based on a Swedish design (the Type 471.) At 3,000 tons displacement, the Collins are half the size of the American Los Angeles class nuclear attack subs, but are nearly twice the size of s European non-nuclear subs. Australia needed larger boats because of the sheer size of the oceans in the area.

There were a lot of technical problems with the Collins class boats, which the media jumped all over. The design of these subs was novel and ambitious, using a lot of automation. This reduced the crew size to 45, but resulted in a higher workload for the submarine sailors. This is a major reason for the morale problem. Another problem with the small crew was that every one of the sailors had to be pretty sharp to begin with, then required years of training to learn the job, and more responsibility for each sailor as well.

The new class of subs are going to build on the Collins design, and will probably be a bit larger, and probably have an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system. This enables the sub to stay underwater for over a week at a time. Before the decision to expand the size of the sub fleet, the "Collins Replacement" boats were to enter service in 2024, just when the oldest Collins class sub was ready for retirement. That building plan will have to be sped up if the submarine fleet is to be doubled in a decade.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article MARINES: The Seagoing Security Swat Teams


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Scooterboy       5/7/2009 3:57:12 AM
Hi I keep hearing that AIP was rejected by the Aust Govt for numerous reasons, and that the single Stirling unit purchased is stored and forgotten.
 
As an amature I think the doubling of the sub fleet (2009 White Paper) is a good idea if the morale and manning problems can be overcome.
 
The Stoker Hudspeth concept based on a conventionally powered Virgina Class Variant seems like a good idea to me esp if Long range Land attack missles are purchased ( again the new white paper). VLS cells incorporated don't waste torpedo space.

Any comments welcome.
If I have started a repeat thread please direct me to the previous one
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/7/2009 4:57:03 AM

Hi I keep hearing that AIP was rejected by the Aust Govt for numerous reasons, and that the single Stirling unit purchased is stored and forgotten.

 It was rejected because it didn't provide enough benefit to warrant inclusion. It's not "forgotten" - it's in storage and not needed.

As an amature I think the doubling of the sub fleet (2009 White Paper) is a good idea if the morale and manning problems can be overcome.

 it's more than just a manning and morale issue

The Stoker Hudspeth concept based on a conventionally powered Virgina Class Variant seems like a good idea to me esp if Long range Land attack missles are purchased ( again the new white paper). VLS cells incorporated don't waste torpedo space.

nope, its a ridiculous concept for our needs. we're on the cusp of realising new warfighting technologies, wtf use a virginia as a mule??

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/7/2009 5:00:19 AM

The new class of subs are going to build on the Collins design

absolute rubbish.  all the prelim designs to  date don't look anything a 471. 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    fixed typo   5/7/2009 5:50:20 AM
May 6, 2009: Australia has decided to make the submarine the key component of its fleet. Over the next decade, Australia will double the number of subs in service, from six to twelve. This will mean that more than half (12 out of 23)of their  major warships will be subs. What is remarkable about this is the relative isolation of the submarine sailors within the Australian navy. Because of that, and the smaller crews of subs, few submarine officers achieved high rank in the navy. But the admirals have come to recognize, for all that, the submarine is the best warship for Australia's needs (defense against a superior surface fleet, or enemy subs seeking to blockade the nation).

and its based on the current govts view of how we will fight and defend our next war - the odds of that govt staying in power another 4-8 years, and that view being set in concrete is minimal.

there are two ex submariners at flag rank at present. 

 
Currently, the Australian Navy has six Collins class subs, and the sailors who serve on these boats are not happy. This has been a problem for years. Recently, the navy surveyed the submarine sailors and were told that the submarine crewmen felt unappreciated and overworked. Half of them were getting out of the navy as soon as their current enlistments were up. Many found the work boring, and felt they spent too much time at sea.  As a result, only enough qualified sailors are available to provide crews for three of the six Collins class subs. Each boat requires a crew of 45 highly trained sailors (eight of them officers.)

the exit rates also have a lot to do with the fact that they could double and sometimes triple their salaries in the mining sector.  conditions of service need to match up with domestic circumstances and it hasn't reflected opportunity.

The initial navy response was to offer large cash bonuses to get existing submarine sailors to stay in the navy, and to attract qualified recruits to serve on subs. This helped a bit, but at the expense of officer morale. The bonuses increased sailors annual pay by up to $38,000, which meant officers were now making less than many of the men they commanded. Worse yet, not enough new recruits were attracted. The submarine service has high standards, thus many of those who were interested, were not qualified to undertake the long training courses. The global recession may help, because the Australian economy has been booming, providing many opportunities for the kind of guys who would qualify for the submarine service.

Sorry, people who leave the service often go into jobs cvompletely unrelated to their profession.  Not enough recruits were recruited into the ADF overall - not just the RAN.  Why would an engineer able to realise 120-240k per annum go into a job that pays 1/2 to 2/3rd's of that and also not be committed to "nn" years of service?  Officers were getting the bonuses as well.  

The Australian navy has been suffering from a serious geek shortage for several years now. With a total strength of 13,000, being short a few dozen people in some job categories can have serious repercussions, and that's what happened to the submarine force. For example, the navy is short about a third of the marine engineering officers it needs. There are less serious shortages in officers specializing in electrical systems and weapons systems. Australian warships have been active in the war on terror, resulting in many crews being away from home for up to six months at a time. There are shortages of both officers and sailors with technical skills.

It's not a shortage of geeks that are the problem - there is a world wide shortage of engineers because they've been snapped up by the minerals and resources boom.  hell, I advertised for an engineer in my last contract and ended up with 40 candidates - only 2 were australian - the rest were internationals and already happily earning a motzah in the resourcesand energy sectors of their own countries.  $160k per annum, 10 days on and 10 days off and flying home every weekend is something that the defence forces cannot compete with

The situation was further complicated by a booming economy, and big demand for those with engineering degrees, and a few years of experience. This made it easy for engineering officers to leave the navy and get a higher paying, and more comfortable, civilian job. The navy  responded with cash bonuses, better living and working conditions, and other fringe benefits. But the submarine force cannot have their working conditions improved much. While the subs are of modern design and recent construction, they are still subs. That means not much space or privacy in there.

Submariners are used to lack of privacy - its the domestic issues which cause the most grief

All Western navies have similar problems, and have applied similar solutions, with some degree of success. 

The RAN already looks like a mini advertising cell for the UN - not as much as the RAAF though

U.S. subs have the advantage of being larger (because of the nuclear propulsion) and with larger crews (nearly three times the size of the Collins class boats). This apparently helps. Other nations have small, modern, diesel-electric boats like the Collins class, but do not send them off on long voyages.

What??  Collins is not a small conventional.  It's over 3000t depending on depth etc.... It's one of the trio of large conventionals that are over 3000t in displacement.  (Oyashio + variants, later Kilos and Collins are all large conventionals)
The others are principally green water subs.  The larger subs are built for a reason, projection, persistence, real estate management and depth management (japan)

Australia can't avoid the long voyages, because Australia is surrounded by vast oceans areas, that require a lot of time to traverse. It is boring to transit all of that, and that was exactly what the dispirited sailors reported when asked.

Australia has responsibility for managing 1/9th of the worlds green and blue water sets - and its got the population of Mumbai.  You cannot have sailors on long duty cycles staying on the ball all the time when there is no threat - its an artifical environment.  They're dispirited because their domestic situations are taking a hammering.  They're doing long range patrols and missions close to a nuke duty cycle.  The USN has the same problem.  Sailors will cope with anything except angry wives and girlfriends.  

The navy leadership has, in deciding to double the size of its sub fleet, agreed to either fix the morale and recruiting problems, or risk seeing most of those boats rarely going to sea, and manned by inexperienced crews when they did. The solution appears to be a combination of more pay, and using larger crews, so that everyone does not have to spend so much time at sea, or carry more people on cruises and reduce the workload for each. Another option is having two crews for each boat, a practice long used for American SSBNs (ballistic missile subs) and some surface ships. Another solution is the larger size of the next class of subs, that will provide, literally, more living room.

For goodness sake, they're not sailing with inexperienced crews.  There are bugger all new recruits going into the sub service.  These boats were originally considered for blue/gold crews, they were designed as long range fleet subs during the cold war.  If we can't get single crews fully slotted, why would blue/gold crewing and a doubling of the numbers work???  It's not the size of personal space on the subs that is the issue - its other things.  getting bigger crew quarters is not what they're wanting. geez, at a food and support level they and the SASR are doing better than anyone else.

The current Collins class boats were built in Australia during the 1990s, and are based on a Swedish design (the Type 471.) At 3,000 tons displacement, the Collins are half the size of the American Los Angeles class nuclear attack subs, but are nearly twice the size of s European non-nuclear subs. Australia needed larger boats because of the sheer size of the oceans in the area.

No, we wanted larger subs because of our mission sets, not just because of real estate issues.

There were a lot of technical problems with the Collins class boats, which the media jumped all over. The design of these subs was novel and ambitious, using a lot of automation. This reduced the crew size to 45, but resulted in a higher workload for the submarine sailors. This is a major reason for the morale problem. Another problem with the small crew was that every one of the sailors had to be pretty sharp to begin with, then required years of training to learn the job, and more responsibility for each sailor as well.

Sorry, thats rubbish as well.  RAN complements on both boats and skimmers has been proportionately lower than the USN, and closer to the RN due to diff doctrine issues.  eg the US counts numbers up differently for damage control issues etc....  The USN has liaised strongly with the RAN over the last few years on trying to see if they can pull their own numbers down.  They still don't like our ratio's, but its not volume of work thats the problem with the service.

The media jumped all over them because they were fundamentally ignorant of how complex sub building and design is.  Your average jounalist doesn't know a sloop from a battleship - expecting them to discuss and debate complex topics like sub design and development is like asking a geography teacher to explain quantum mechanics.  some might be well intentioned, but in the main, and in the beginning especially, they were herd animals  

The new class of subs are going to build on the Collins design, and will probably be a bit larger, and probably have an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system. This enables the sub to stay underwater for over a week at a time. Before the decision to expand the size of the sub fleet, the "Collins Replacement" boats were to enter service in 2024, just when the oldest Collins class sub was ready for retirement. That building plan will have to be sped up if the submarine fleet is to be doubled in a decade.

They're not going to be based on Collins at all.  They will in all likelihood be nearly 20-25% bigger than Collins, but that's not set in stone either.  Sub design is already in transition and they're not going to end up looking like traditional subs because the weapons and sensor fitouts are already changing.  Look at what developments have happened with USN subs in the last 4 years to get an appreciation of how fast subwarfare, sub doctrine and UDT is changing.  5 years ago I witnessed a USV that had 3 hrs endurance.  Now the same capability in a smaller package can undertake the same mission set + more for 36+ hours.  By 2020, the hull may well be final, but the fitouts will be very very different.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/8/2009 3:20:02 PM

May 6, 2009: Australia has decided to make the submarine the key component of its fleet. Over the next decade, Australia will double the number of subs in service, from six to twelve. This will mean that more than half (12 out of 23)of their  major warships will be subs. What is remarkable about this is the relative isolation of the submarine sailors within the Australian navy. Because of that, and the smaller crews of subs, few submarine officers achieved high rank in the navy. But the admirals have come to recognize, for all that, the submarine is the best warship for Australia's needs (defense against a superior surface fleet, or enemy subs seeking to blockade the nation).

and its based on the current govts view of how we will fight and defend our next war - the odds of that govt staying in power another 4-8 years, and that view being set in concrete is minimal.

Agreed. There is no reason to argue that that an administration change as radical as that which beset the United States for example is not going to affect national defense; especially when the new bunch of jokers just added 20,000 INCOMPETENT pot stirrers (lawyers) to clog up procurement worse; than it already is.

there are two ex submariners at flag rank at present. 

I didn't know that. I call that the Gates problem.


Currently, the Australian Navy has six Collins class subs, and the sailors who serve on these boats are not happy. This has been a problem for years. Recently, the navy surveyed the submarine sailors and were told that the submarine crewmen felt unappreciated and overworked. Half of them were getting out of the navy as soon as their current enlistments were up. Many found the work boring, and felt they spent too much time at sea.  As a result, only enough qualified sailors are available to provide crews for three of the six Collins class subs. Each boat requires a crew of 45 highly trained sailors (eight of them officers.)
 
the exit rates also have a lot to do with the fact that they could double and sometimes triple their salaries in the mining sector.  conditions of service need to match up with domestic circumstances and it hasn't reflected opportunity.

IE take home pay and stay home opportunity. Same Human factors recruitment killers for every bluer water navy globally.

The initial navy response was to offer large cash bonuses to get existing submarine sailors to stay in the navy, and to attract qualified recruits to serve on subs. This helped a bit, but at the expense of officer morale. The bonuses increased sailors annual pay by up to $38,000, which meant officers were now making less than many of the men they commanded. Worse yet, not enough new recruits were attracted. The submarine service has high standards, thus many of those who were interested, were not qualified to undertake the long training courses. The global recession may help, because the Australian economy has been booming, providing many opportunities for the kind of guys who would qualify for the submarine service.

Sorry, people who leave the service often go into jobs cvompletely unrelated to their profession.  Not enough recruits were recruited into the ADF overall - not just the RAN.  Why would an engineer able to realise 120-240k per annum go into a job that pays 1/2 to 2/3rd's of that and also not be committed to "nn" years of service?  Officers were getting the bonuses as well.  

CREF above.

The Australian navy has been suffering from a serious geek shortage for several years now. With a total strength of 13,000, being short a few dozen people in some job categories can have serious repercussions, and that's what happened to the submarine force. For example, the navy is short about a third of the marine engineering officers it needs. There are less serious shortages in officers specializing in electrical systems and weapons systems. Australian warships have been active in the war on terror, resulting in many crews being away from home for up to six months at a time. There are shortages of both officers and sailors with technical skills.

It's not a shortage of geeks that are the problem - there is a world wide shortage of engineers because they've been snapped up by the minerals and resources boom.  hell, I advertised for an engineer in my last contract and ended up with 40 candidates - only 2 were Australian - the rest were internationals and already happily earning a motzah in the resources and energy sectors of their own countries.  $160k per annum, 10 days on and 10 days off and flying home every weekend is something that the defence forces cannot compete with

The problem is a COMPETENT engineer shortage PERIOD. The US is short 100,000 + of what we need to bring what we want to do to fruition now. Projects that we used to do in ten years or less are taking 20 years with massive overruns in cost because while we still have the Burt Rutans to conceive, we don't have the quantities grunt engineers who can take a crazy idea and figure out how to do it fast and cheap. That goes for military slots as well.  It wasn't industry that came up with SIDEWINDER, it was a couple of bored Department of Navy weapon's specialists. 

The situation was further complicated by a booming economy, and big demand for those with engineering degrees, and a few years of experience. This made it easy for engineering officers to leave the navy and get a higher paying, and more comfortable, civilian job. The navy  responded with cash bonuses, better living and working conditions, and other fringe benefits. But the submarine force cannot have their working conditions improved much. While the subs are of modern design and recent construction, they are still subs. That means not much space or privacy in there.

Submariners are used to lack of privacy - its the domestic issues which cause the most grief

Nobody says it, but conjugality is the problem. Married men like to see the family-espoecially the WIFE. 

All Western navies have similar problems, and have applied similar solutions, with some degree of success. 

The RAN already looks like a mini advertising cell for the UN - not as much as the RAAF though

Shrug. There may be a solution with flying the gold crew to relieve blue, out to the forward based sub for the USN. I've discussed this idea elsewhere. The US is a BIG nation. We can do stuff like that. The RAN has a population base less than greater New York. I don't see an easy solution. 

U.S. subs have the advantage of being larger (because of the nuclear propulsion) and with larger crews (nearly three times the size of the Collins class boats). This apparently helps. Other nations have small, modern, diesel-electric boats like the Collins class, but do not send them off on long voyages.

What??  Collins is not a small conventional.  It's over 3000t depending on depth etc.... It's one of the trio of large conventionals that are over 3000t in displacement.  (Oyashio + variants, later Kilos and Collins are all large conventionals)
 
The others are principally green water subs.  The larger subs are built for a reason, projection, persistence, real estate management and depth management (japan)
 
I might list several other nations that use long patrols for their conventionals. France, Spain, Canada,  etc. Its called geography.
 
Australia can't avoid the long voyages, because Australia is surrounded by vast oceans areas, that require a lot of time to traverse. It is boring to transit all of that, and that was exactly what the dispirited sailors reported when asked
.
Australia has responsibility for managing 1/9th of the worlds green and blue water sets - and its got the population of Mumbai.  You cannot have sailors on long duty cycles staying on the ball all the time when there is no threat - its an artifical environment.  They're dispirited because their domestic situations are taking a hammering.  They're doing long range patrols and missions close to a nuke duty cycle.  The USN has the same problem.  Sailors will cope with anything except angry wives and girlfriends.  

CREF above.

The navy leadership has, in deciding to double the size of its sub fleet, agreed to either fix the morale and recruiting problems, or risk seeing most of those boats rarely going to sea, and manned by inexperienced crews when they did. The solution appears to be a combination of more pay, and using larger crews, so that everyone does not have to spend so much time at sea, or carry more people on cruises and reduce the workload for each. Another option is having two crews for each boat, a practice long used for American SSBNs (ballistic missile subs) and some surface ships. Another solution is the larger size of the next class of subs, that will provide, literally, more living room.

For goodness sake, they're not sailing with inexperienced crews.  There are bugger all new recruits going into the sub service.  These boats were originally considered for blue/gold crews, they were designed as long range fleet subs during the cold war.  If we can't get single crews fully slotted, why would blue/gold crewing and a doubling of the numbers work???  It's not the size of personal space on the subs that is the issue - its other things.  getting bigger crew quarters is not what they're wanting. geez, at a food and support level they and the SASR are doing better than anyone else.

What they want is home port time.  Human beings are LAND animals.

The current Collins class boats were built in Australia during the 1990s, and are based on a Swedish design (the Type 471.) At 3,000 tons displacement, the Collins are half the size of the American Los Angeles class nuclear attack subs, but are nearly twice the size of s European non-nuclear subs. Australia needed larger boats because of the sheer size of the oceans in the area.

No, we wanted larger subs because of our mission sets, not just because of real estate issues.

You needed torpedoes and sensors.  Do I need to explain the curse of the kilowatt?

There were a lot of technical problems with the Collins class boats, which the media jumped all over. The design of these subs was novel and ambitious, using a lot of automation. This reduced the crew size to 45, but resulted in a higher workload for the submarine sailors. This is a major reason for the morale problem. Another problem with the small crew was that every one of the sailors had to be pretty sharp to begin with, then required years of training to learn the job, and more responsibility for each sailor as well.

Sorry, that's rubbish as well.  RAN complements on both boats and skimmers has been proportionately lower than the USN, and closer to the RN due to diff doctrine issues.  eg the US counts numbers up differently for damage control issues etc....  The USN has liaised strongly with the RAN over the last few years on trying to see if they can pull their own numbers down.  They still don't like our ratio's, but its not volume of work that's the problem with the service.

Different mindsets. Some Navies (the ones, like the RAN for example, who fought to the death with crazies like the WW II Japanese) demand that a sailor be able to actually have a valve to turn to isolate in case the automatic  cutoff fails at the pass through.

The media jumped all over them because they were fundamentally ignorant of how complex sub building and design is.  Your average journalist doesn't know a sloop from a battleship - expecting them to discuss and debate complex topics like sub design and development is like asking a geography teacher to explain quantum mechanics.  some might be well intentioned, but in the main, and in the beginning especially, they were herd animals  

Spoken like someone who has to explain a chokepoint to some nitwit who vaguely thinks its a martial arts term?

The new class of subs are going to build on the Collins design, and will probably be a bit larger, and probably have an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system. This enables the sub to stay underwater for over a week at a time. Before the decision to expand the size of the sub fleet, the "Collins Replacement" boats were to enter service in 2024, just when the oldest Collins class sub was ready for retirement. That building plan will have to be sped up if the submarine fleet is to be doubled in a decade.

They're not going to be based on Collins at all.  They will in all likelihood be nearly 20-25% bigger than Collins, but that's not set in stone either.  Sub design is already in transition and they're not going to end up looking like traditional subs because the weapons and sensor fit-outs are already changing.  Look at what developments have happened with USN subs in the last 4 years to get an appreciation of how fast sub-warfare, sub doctrine and UDT is changing.  5 years ago I witnessed a USV that had 3 hrs endurance.  Now the same capability in a smaller package can undertake the same mission set + more for 36+ hours.  By 2020, the hull may well be final, but the fit-outs will be very very different.

Presumably the Flight Two Virginias will reflect this more somewhat.  What you see with the current Flight Ones right now really deceives you.

Herald
 

 
Quote    Reply

jlb       5/12/2009 11:22:54 AM




I might list several other nations that use long patrols for their conventionals. France, Spain, Canada,  etc. Its called geography.


Herald

 





The French navy went all-nuke eighteen years ago.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    we're both incorrect.   5/13/2009 3:07:38 AM









I might list several other nations that use long patrols for their conventionals. France, Spain, Canada,  etc. Its called geography.






Herald



 













The French navy went all-nuke eighteen years ago.
 
Ten years ago. They did: but no longer do patrol conventionals as described.
 
My mistake.
 
Herald
 
 

 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy