FedaykinThanks – I should research more carefully and made less assumptions – still if they pay off the Type 22’s they have Harpoon and torpedoes – any chance they will be fitted to the Type 45’s (I assume possibly for Harpoon and no for the torpedoes)
There is a good chance that the Batch 3 Type 22 might be sold on at the end of their service life with the RN.
FedaykinShrug – I simply looked at the fit out for the Block 3 Type 22’s (which I assume the SDSR will recommend that they should be paid off) and thought the stories of them fitting inner layer defences to the Type 45 in 2011 referred to them stripping Goal Keeper of the Type 22’s – but Phalanx does make more sense
The Goalkeeper system requires deck penetration, the docu clearly shows the plated over positions for Phalanx during the RAS bit. The deck markings are even there, the lack of Phalanx for Type 45 is all down to A-stan and requirement for base defence. One thing to note is the UK gov made no fanfare of using Phalanx in A-stan for base defence, probably due to them not want to talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul to provide the capability at the cost of the navy. With the final retirement of the remaining type 42 and the upcoming draw down in A-stan we should see Phalanx on Type 45 from 2011. Considering the primary weapon system in the form of Sea Viper is still bedding in its not a big issue at the moment.
FedaykinFedaykinTurkey has more to loose than Israel when going into a situation outside their control. Non of its allies is eager to see Turkey in that situation. At the moment Turkey will loose it self claimed role as mediator in that region. By the way, even when Israel will allow such few ships to pass nothing will change really by that. I am still surprised that none demanded the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldier and a constant ceasefire as a first step to lift the present blockade.
I agree that Turkey has a lot to loose but I think hot heads are talking at the moment. I can see Turkey sending an escorted convoy and selling it as a proportional response. This scenario brings up all sorts of issues including article V of the NATO treaty. If Israel (a non NATO nation) so much as scratches a Turkish navy ship in open waters then Turkey has every right to call for help under article V. Now there is no way America and other NATO nations could help Turkey under those circumstances putting NATO stability into sharp question.
I can see America in the secret back channels trying to really cool down Turkey and also pushing Israel to put forward some kind of conciliatory measure.
FedaykinIsrael has 3 fairly decent German made subs. AND those subs have a strongly suspected nuclear strike capability.
And if they so much as scratch a Turkish navy ship it would be a total disaster for Israel.
FedaykinIf Turkey decides to escort any future aid convoys then Israel has real problems, not from a millitarial sense but rather in a political form.
Any stand off with Turkeys navy has PR disaster written all over it and if they actually fired on a Turkish ship well the global fallout doesn’t bare thinking.
The best Israel can hope is America puts pressure on Turkey not to do this.
This is a PR disaster of Israel’s making, whilst its clear that the protestors were very agressive in defending their ship the killing of 9+ of them just looks bad. The further fallout with Israels only Muslim allied nation is just what the protestors wanted especially if the next convoy gets Turkish navy protection.
I think the best solution is if Israel states that it will change the nature of the blockade with them stating that they will allow through ships to Gaza after an inspection, this would wrong foot the protestors.
FedaykinAnd…. didn’t he say ‘Perry class with Seasprite’……
Is that right ????
Ken
Yep I heard that as well!
Throw in the Egyptian and Polish navies as well!
FedaykinOn a serious note the lack mention of the NFR-90 and Horizon is a serious omission in the projects history for the program. Also not talking about half the planned number being ordered is irritating.
FedaykinWatching the program right now, they are conducting war games against the armed forces of Ginger!
Anyone notice that aside from the Perry class the simulated enemy is basically India…Talwar class frigate and Jaguar armed with Sea Eagle.
FedaykinThe DPRK airforce is large (about 1500 aircraft – 3 times the size of the souths) and obsolete.
Equipped with Chinese and Russian types its most modern fighters are the Mig23 of the 60th regiment and the Mig29 of the 57th regiment. Flying hours are low for most of the airforce between 7 to 25 hours per year per pilot.
In comparsion to the South Korean airforce they are utterly no match, the only concern is the large numbers.
Actually on a side note the most amazing aircraft in North Korea’s inventory is the MD Helicopters 500D, they imported 87 in 1985 circumventing US export controls and about 60 have been converted into gunships. Even more weird the airframes were made in South Korea prior to final assembly in the US where they were purchased by a German firm who exported them to the DPRK!
FedaykinToo many loopholes in both hypotheses, so which one is more laughable will only be revealed until last moment.
There’re just too many inconsistences from the South’s investigations so far.
1. the early test results of the metallic debris and chemical residue appeared to be German made now have been omitted
2. The assigned civil investigator by Korean National Assembly, Mr Shin now raised more interesting doubts:
a. The timing of the accident is in controversy, 9:15pm or 9:45pm, as the timing could determine at what exact location the corvette broke. And that location’s water depth could be crucial to the consequence of aground or Torpedo attack.
b. The 1st message the crew of “Cheonan “ sent to HQ is “ Grounded” instead of “torpedo attack”, and HQ to coastal guard as well “ grounded”. Those are well documented by the 1st hand TV interview and report. You mean those sailors even can’t differentiate a torpedo attack and “”grounded”?
For the rest, you could read Mr Shin’s letter to Hillary Clinton,
http://www.seoprise.com/~bu/dk/Letter_to_Hillary_Clinton_US_Secretary_of_State.pdf
I’ll not question their expertise but their ground? If they just want to come out a report to convince themselves or other numbers in the group, whatever they said is fine, because with or without “Cheonan “ accident, the NK have long been sentenced to death. However, if just because such a group tabled something then need the other party outside the group to accept, that I hv to say, if it’s the case, the same group should have settled the Korea peninsular with Chinese some 60 years before. There’re other experts in China or Russia, but they’re not involved.
I’m sorry Pinko but its clear that North Korea sunk the Cheonan with a torpedo. Mr Shin might be earnest but his experience is not relevent to the investigation, he stated that he has two years naval service as a gunnary officer and practical knowledge designing bulk carriers. On the other hand the international team sent to perform the investigation had 24 experts in their field. Also whilst you might argue the US and Korean experts might well be biased what about the Australian, British, Canadian and especially the Swedish. Certainly Russian experts could of been included but they would probably of supported the findings. I have read Mr Shin’s letter and frankly its not worth the paper its printed on, a few conclusions drawn from some pictures and the confused testonomy of some crewmen. The international team had access to the Cheonan!
As for the Cheonan radioing that she had grounded, perfectly reasonable! It would of been extremely confusing for the surviving crew members. In the circumstances how do you expect the crew to know what was happening? Their ship had just been blown in half, hardly a time for reasoned or rational thinking by the survivors!
I’m sorry Pinko that guilt is clear backed up with concrete evidence examined by a team of people who have expertise in the field of what happens when a ship gets sunk by a torpedo.
FedaykinWell, the bubbles starting busted
PCC-772 Cheonan: An Unacceptable Provocation by the United States of America and the International Community has a Duty To Respond
Posted on May 27, 2010 by willyloman
by Scott CreightonThe Sinking of the Cheonan: We Are Being Lied To
Posted on May 24, 2010 by willyloman
by Scott Creightonhttp://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/
I really respect your input Pinko but the source you have linked to is a rather paranoid conspiracy site.
The idea it conveys that the Cheonan run aground is laughable.
The team who investigated the sinking of the Cheonan was made up of experts from the Royal Australian Navy, USN, Royal Navy, Swedish Navy and Canadian navy. These navies are going to send people who really know their stuff and certainly be able to tell the difference between a ship that has run aground and blown up by a torpedo. Actually 4 of those navies have direct experience of sinking ships in combat conditions as well as simulated. We also have parts of the torpedo, in the end North Korea did it there isn’t any other way of looking at it.
FedaykinThe type of NK torpedo in questions, what kind of guidance does it have. Wire guidance wouldn’t be affected in an accoustically difficult environment. Perhaps wake homing not either.
Indeed Wanshan, actually people are assuming that the Torpedo was fired in some form of homing mode or at high speed just like in a war movie.
Torpedos can be set to run at several speeds and depths, you can also aim it the old fashion way with an angle shot setting the torpedo to run at a pre selected depth and speed with no homing whatsoever. Actually the way the General Belgrano was sunk. If the torpedo was running slow in litoral conditions its more then possible that the torpedo wasn’t detected.
No active sonar required by the launch submarine it just lays in wait at periscope depth calculates a shot and fires.
FedaykinHarriers of all flavours can run up to ful thrust on deck prior to launch held back only on their brakes, even in the wet. Good brakes, Good tyres and very good anti skid coating on the deck. The Russians use hydraulic chocks in front of the main wheels, which retract very quickly when the aircraft launches. They serve the same function as the holdback bar on a steam catapult. A holdback bar uses a special ‘weak link’ that can hold the aircraft under full thrust but will break when the catapult is fired. The Russian STOBAR system only has the aircraft thrust and a ski jump to get the aircraft airborne, so a holdback bar wouldn’t work (no extra thrust to break the link). It’s possible the retractable chock method could be used on the QE class in front of the JBD, otherwise the brakes will have to be REALLY good!
Indeed that is my thinking Very good brakes would be needed! Considering that the F35 has over twice the thrust of the Harrier even with its greater weight your asking alot of the brakes and deck surface.
FedaykinHow do the FAA deal with problem with SHARs and GR9s?
I presume its less of an issue with Harrier as it hasn’t got the same thrust potential.
Sign In
