hopsalot, best to leave it however much JSR’s stupid burns! I know it is hard believe me but you will only travel down the rabbit hole with him. He is either borderline autistic on the spectrum, a nationalistic child or a troll because there is no reasoning with him! PERIOD!

He enjoys spouting all sorts of nonsense about the greatness off Russia and everything manufactured there and he has dragged many a good thread down into crazy debates about global economics, manufacturing sovereignty vs outsourcing and Titanium production (a particular curious obsession). In “JSR land” Europe, America, South America, China, Asia and pretty much anywhere else that isn’t Russia is half a step from a crushing economic collapse due to Russian competition or embargo on vital materials.

Pride in ones countries achievements is one thing but he will not concede any middle ground unless it is everyone else patting him on the back about the glorious mother Russia!

You will have more fun smashing your head against a wall then arguing the matter.

P.S. Criticising the Mig-29 is the worse thing to do in JSR’s eyes! If he could marry the thing and father its Children he would!

The thing I don’t get is that it all seems to be staged in an attempt to appear all Top Gun-cool. Look at the greens for example, mimicking the way the USN green jersey catapult crew would wait for launch and then quickly head up to the cats to do their thing (like placing slot buttons for cat 3 and so on). They even got the cool ready-to-sprint stance down.

I find this hilarious. 😀 Just having a rainbow crew is a pretty sound idea though, I mean, anything that aids organization is a good thing. But why this outright carbon copy, even implementing deck officers that serve no actual purpose on this type of carrier?

It sort of reminds me of the time when European nobility would send off sketches of porcelain designs to China to have them make it. Legend has it that they’d even replicate coffee stains and such, if they were on the sketches. And this is no joke but I know of occasions were people have ordered electronical components from China where they’d specify acceptable fault rates in fractions or percentages and the Chinese suppliers would actually include faulty components corresponding to the order specs.

Sorry. 😀

EDIT: I see now that others have already pointed out how humorous this all is and in the process of it, pretty much created an internet meme: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1954861&postcount=622
(those all seem to be making fun of the yellow jerseys though, giving the go sign)

😀

What would be the point of staging things to look cool? Flight deck operations are highly dangerous and all tasks are performed for good reason. Adopting practice similar to the Americans is certainly sensible and they are hardly going to do anything just for the LOLs! The Yellow shirt shooter is telling whoever controls the hold back grid to release the aircraft, a similar task to commanding the catapult to fire. The carrier still needs flight deck officers and plane directors so the yellow shirts have a job to do. As for the Green shirts, the carrier has arrestor gear so that is one roll taken up and as for the launch they are probably checking the hold back grid works properly and the aircraft is correctly aligned. After launch they will probably run forward and check the grid retracts. This is supported by the picture of the J-15 launching, the green shirts are aligned with and staring at the hold back grid. Again a similar role so why reinvent the wheel.

Also consider this, the Chinese have been experimenting with steam catapults for a number of years and it is rumoured that the indigenous carriers will get them. It might well be they China navy want to get their deck crews used to catapult operations procedurally even if the Liaoning isn’t fitted with one.

Looking at the live footage the crew are clearly not running around the deck for a photo opportunity. They are following a trained for set of procedures which do look very similar to USN practice. Yes it will be all shiny shoes and neat uniform…the China Navy have rather high crew turn out standards these days and heck it is all new! Give it a few weeks and their deck uniform will probably show some wear!

Also have a look at the footage of the F-35B flight testing on the USS Wasp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6r_4UM6Eso
Plenty of Yellow and Green shirts all with tasks to perform but not a catapult or arrestor gear to be seen! With your thinking these guys are running around for show as well!

Undoubtedly there are differences to USN practices reflecting the unique aspects of STOBAR operations but to infer that it is all style over substance is rather childish!

Real shame! Talk about going out on top, on the carrier just after the J-15 made it’s first trap!

My condolences go out to the family, they should be proud!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l9CDW4tlgOU#

😉

Excellent! A bit late for your book 🙁

They certainly learnt from the Brazilians in respect of deck operations. Very similar to how the Americans do things, they even had a couple of shooters albeit no catapult!

Just for reference NAe Sao Paulo flight deck operations:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp6_Li8DgiU

China had people on her for a while to learn about conventional carrier operations.

what will be stellar? :rolleyes:

Trapping the third wire on a four wire carrier is regarded as a safe trap in USN practice. Catching the second wire means he came up a bit short, not stellar but not massively dangerous. If the aircraft makes a perfect approach exactly on the ball then the jet will naturally snag the third wire. Catching the first wire is very dangerous as any shorter and the plane hits the rear of the ship. Catching the last wire is also dangerous as if the wire snaps then the aircraft will probably end up in the drink.

This is the first ever trap so snagging the second wire isn’t a disaster also the mirror landing sight might not be perfectly adjusted yet. Then again the first trap will be after many touch and goes. I am not criticising the pilot as that would be hardly fair in the circumstances only observing that in the context of a safe trap it is hardly stellar as of yet. Notice I did say that it will come with practice, I suggest don’t look for insult when none is meant!

Trapping a wire is difficult even for a pilot who has the benefit of decades of institutional experience. Have a look at this old video of an RAF pilot attempting to catch the wire on Ark Royal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bW7tjy7AOk&feature=related

With the Upholder class the current problems are very much a result of many issues building up!

1) They were mothballed (BADLY) whilst they were still in the post build defect rectification period.

2) On top of the bad mothballing process they were stored badly in the water rather then laid up on dry land.

3) The MOD/RN cannibalised them for parts to support the very similar SSN fleet.

4) Built with Paxman Valenta train diesels that were unsuited to the operating profile of the submarine. They should of just fitted proven off the shelf foreign diesel submarine engines like MAN.

5) The Canadians decided to save money by keeping their old MK48 mk 4 torpedo’s from the Oberon’s rather then buy Spearfish which was compatible with the installed FCS. To do this they had to bodge in the FCS from their retiring Oberon’s.

If they hadn’t been retired from UK service the probably wouldn’t of suffered the problems that they did under Canadian.

I dislike the term “banging on”, it’s what Cameron used to say about the EU because he did not want to face reality, and look at him now, trying to come back from Brussels without being fiscally raped. My point about Skybolt and Polaris is that unless you understand why we got where we are, you are in no postion to try and assess where we ought to go in future. People seem to be arguing that we should keep four SSBNs because we have always had four SSBNs, regardless of why we ended up with SSBNs in the first place, and the huge changes in the threats we face since 1968, and the forces we have to deal with those threats.

No don’t change the subject to Europe, it has no relevance to this debate.

So more waffle then, not going to answer the questions again?

What is the alternative?

Why was there no push for B1B and AGM-86B in the 80’s?

If submarines have to be built to protect Barrow and the Trident missiles are already paid for how is it a saving switching production?

If you can’t answer those very simple questions and instead switch to talking about Europe or Skybolt and Polaris you clearly haven’t got an argument.

I seem to have struck a nerve with you, which is a shame, as I feel that these questions deserve a better response than to brand anyone who queries the need for Britain to maintain its Cold War nuclear force, even as conventional forces are cut way beyond the bone, as some sort of naive dreamer. The fact is, we do not face an existential threat from a major state, as we did in the 20th century from Germany and the USSR, and we have not since 1991. In the 21 years since, we have got involved in major expeditionary campaigns in the Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa, in ways which the withdrawal from East of Suez were meant to have made impossible as far back as 1971. Yet our conventional forces, which actually do the work, have been decimated, and it seems the only thing which is not up for discussion is the SSBN force, the ultimate weapon which is aimed, literally, at nobody. If that is not a fair topic for discussion, I don’t know what is.

As to Polaris, I never said it was a terrible mistake. I have said, rightly, that it was a decision forced on us when the US cancelled Skybolt, and that one Polaris sub on patrol with 48 kiloton range warheads, represented a large diminution in the nuclear strike power which had been available to Britain. That’s just factual information, take it or leave it as you wish.

I respect that you are arguing for complete nuclear disarmament, that is a reasonable topic for discussion what has hit a nerve is your persistent twisting of the facts to suit your world view and arguing to maintain deterrent but not actually laying out an alternative and instead banging on about the cancelled Skybolt and Polaris.

You are wilfully avoiding the questions that I asked and Badger1968 as well many posts ago! What is the alternative? What is the cheaper solution? Why didn’t we go for B1B and AGM-86B when we had the chance?

If you can’t lay out the alternative then I can only draw the conclusion that you are naive. Also I find the whole term “cold war capability” asinine! It is usually spouted by people who have a chip on their shoulder but little understanding of defence matters. What some call “cold war capability” I call the ability to fight against a peer or near peer rival. In respect of nuclear weapons anything less then second strike is a costly waster of time as it doesn’t offer the intended deterrent. That is nothing to do with the ability to turn Moscow into glass. There has been significant proliferation in the last twenty years, so the global big stick of Trident seems a worthwhile investment especially as we are a permanent security council member! There are many countries arguing we should loose that seat, having a strategic nuclear capability ensures that we don’t.

After Astute is finished we have to replace it with something in Barrow or the Nuclear Submarine build capability is gone. Building three or four SSBN to carry missiles already paid for appears to be a very cost effective way of maintaining that capability. If we drop trident but build more SSN to save Barrow there has been no saving for the conventional forces. It is a zero sum game!

So take it or leave that…