Re: High Tech/New Tech

[Bill Garmer <bgarmer@tsc.net>]

At 10:31 PM 8/28/97 -0400, you wrote:
>At 04:27 PM 8/28/97 +0000, you wrote:
>>> Date:          Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:44:17 -0400
>>> Reply-to:      MP-GG@nostromo.gate.net (Mailinglist 'MP-GG')
>>> From:          kurt@blazenet.net (Kurt Feltenberger)
>>> To:            MP-GG@nostromo.gate.net (Mailinglist 'MP-GG')
>>> Subject:       Re: High Tech/New Tech
>>> They are not ment to go after the Soviet/Russian/Chinese boomers during
the
>>> war and its immediate aftermath.  They would be used only when the Project
>>> started to become active, to safeguard sites and bases from a follow up
>>> strike.  As much as it pains me to say, the Navy would probably by out of
>>> commission due to losses, lack of parts, breakdown of command and control.
>>
>>	It would be hard to find them, given the range of the missiles, 
>>especially those on the Typhoon's.  Without a SOSUS, or other world 
>>wide system of locating enemy subs, an MP force could never find them 
>>in time.  Remember, some SLBM's could literally hit the U.S. after 
>>being launched from drydocks in Russia.
>
>
>I agree it would be difficult.  But one thing that would play into the HK's
>favor is that the Russians tend to keep thier Boomers close to home and
>when they do put out to sea tend to migrate to the so-called "bastions".

Only if they were in war mode.  During peacetime operations, they sail
their boomers around a lot like the US.  Basically it is a case of saying
they ain't afraid.  They do tend to put escort subs with them.  The
bastions, when set up, would have mine barriers and ASW ships on the borders.

>Another consideration is that even new and in top shape and efficiency,
>Soviet Boomers tend to be noisy.  Added to 3-5 years of little or no
>refitting (the yards glow now) and the measures that would be needed to
>keep a crew of conscripts in line, I can not see how the Boomer, or Shooter
>for that matter, would be anywhere near peak efficiency.  

And how are they staying at sea for 3-5 year without ports?

>Some SLBM's could do what you suggest.  3-5 years after the war they could
>still do it if the drydock was towed to within several hundred miles of the
>CONUS coast.  The Sov's never sortied much of thier Boomer fleet at a time.
> To respond with a viable counterstrike after a US first strike, they would
>need to use the long range birds in high numbers.  If the shipyards and
>resupply points are in ruins, the area for a viable launch shrinks greatly.

YES - plus add that when the crews get back to the remaining ports they are
going to split.

>Also, if you stake out the probable locations where the Boomers could put
>in for port facilities, you could locate them before they sortie.  
>

Bill

>
>Kurt Feltenberger
>kurt@blazenet.net
>http://www.igateway.com/clients/kurt
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>+ The Morrow Project Guns and Gear List!  To unsubscribe send E-mail +
>+ to:  ListServ@nostromo.gate.net   and in the body of message type: +
>+                delete yourname@yoursite MP-GG                      +
>+      All other questions should be sent to walt@digital.net        +
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>