View Single Post
  #12  
Old 03-17-2010, 12:28 AM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,688
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
This is true, but metal hulls in salt water don't tend to stand up well to 40+ years sitting in the ocean. Not to mention the machinery that propells them develops "issues" the older it gets.

Would you drive a 1940's rust bucket into a warzone and feel good about it even if the stereo had been replaced and the seats reupholstered? :S

Some metal hulls do fine in the ocean for 40+ years. Materials, maintenance, and the like play and enormous role in how well a hull survives. To suggest that the US Navy would go to the expense of refitting the weapons and electronics on a rust bucket is really rather silly. It's fine to have a realistic look at the potential drawbacks and liabilities of the US Navy--or any navy, for that matter. Your point about an Australian sub penetrating the security screen of a carrier battle group is a good, realistic example of how a motivated and capable leader and crew can make the most of their equipment and carry out successful attacks. It's another matter entirely to imply that the USN is so inept that new weapons (costing millions) are going to be installed in hulls that should be scrapped--which is the only reasonable interpretation of the term "rust bucket". I'll trust the judgment of professional naval architects to determine which hulls are suitable to be maintained and refitted.

Webstral
Reply With Quote