I can’t recall what sort of ship it (i couldnt tell the difference between a frigate or a patrol boat…well ok..maybe) was but a few years ago on the news a story was run about a 2nd hand ship bought from the USA (maybe 4 or so yrs ago now). The ship was basically gutted when sold and had rust issues when work was finally started on it. I can recall we bought 2 at the time….. weather they are “frontline” or not …. its still belongs to the Navy and its still 2nd hand….

And i was using it as an example of how policy changes…… ie: how refurbished Caribous was not acceptable 15yrs ago….. but now 2nd hand stuff is perfectly ok….

Those would be the Newport News LSTs that are now the HMA Ships Manoora and Kanimbla. Arguably two of the most important vessels in the current fleet. Only if one is in the USN would they not be considered fleet units.

Daniel

Ummm suicide in Islam is considered an absolute ‘sin’ from what I know about this religion. How exactly are they expecting a reward in the after life for committing a sin :s

Well technically speaking they aren’t committing suicide. They are attacking the enemies of Islam and it just happens that the chosen method tends to lead to a very high casualty rate amongst the attackers.

Daniel

Of course nobody of us has any proofs. Anyway, I often spead into opinion that most of bombings are being placed *just like that to spread terror*. Where the hell do you people have this from? Who would be risking money, inprisonment and even life for placing bombs on random if he can do exactly the same thing for some apropriate purpose? (apropriate for his moral beliefs, of course)

Hmm Hamas seems to have no problem finding volunteers to be suicide bombers on Israeli buses. Just which leaders etc are these guys targeting if they are not there just for the sheer terror factor?

Anyway the terror factor is a means unto itself. Follow the process if you will.

1) Shia’s win bulk of political power in new government. Sunni’s refuse to work with new Govt beacuse they can’t accept the whole reversal of the rulers/subjects equation.
2) Shia’s work with the Coalition forces to stabilise the country
3) Some moderate Sunni’s decide to join with the new Govt and Coalition.
4) Sunni insurgents start bombing Shia mosques etc.
5) Coalition and Govt can’t stop attacks.
6) Shia’s hit back at Sunni’s therefor driving moderates back into the insurgents camp.
7) Unity government collapses, civil war or something like it.
8) More dead Coalition troops, more discontent at home.

heading into the realms of speculation now on the thought processes of Iraqi insurgents

With no end in sight and Iran another pariah state the coalition turns to other Muslim nations (mostly Sunni and with similar underlying beliefs to the insurgents and none of whom want to see a new and powerful Shia Iraq in the place of the old Ba’athist Iraq that stood as the bulwark against the hordes of Persia) to help.
9) New government formed with money and influence from the Arab states with a more equal role for the Sunni minority.
10) After the Coalition troops leave the Sunni’s are better placed for a reassertion of thier dominance.
11) Return to the status quo of the last 30 odd years.

Daniel

http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=172582

He’s kinda vague on the DD.

Ah okay, so its probably just a generic DD. Pity, still trying to figure out what it reminds me of though 🙂

Daniel

I see the sub (668??) and the Escort (Perry???) how long before the whole battle group???

I think the escort might be a Spruance actually 🙂 Not a Perry anyway. Sigh if only. I never got past tanks and attack choppers. Built a fairly faithful AMX-10RC at one stage. Still got it largely intact at my folks place IIRC. Should get the stuff for my own kids, but, nah 🙂

Daniel

ROTFLMAO!!!! I guess the same goes for SSBNs and ICBMs huh? It’s only “proper” if a long range bomber can do the job. :rolleyes:

What about it? I notice Hitler didn’t seem to have a problem with mindless aggression and he didn’t have any aircraft carriers. I don’t recall Saddam floating any into Kuwait either. I guess China’s all gungho to get aircraft carriers because they want to be mindlessly aggressive huh?

Nor as effective. Something that has been demonstrated time after time that you seem to be missing is that the presence of a few carrier battle groups appearing on the scene often will diffuse the situation. Try doing that with a submarine.

Uh yeah. Tell me, when is the last time a USAF aircraft depolyed from an amphibious assualt ship?

Give the USAF the Marine’s budget too and I’m sure they’d be happy to.

I believe the gentleman is suggesting that the US should butt out of other peoples business. If the area is so distant that aircraft carriers, amphibious assault vessels and long range is is needed then they shouldn’t be worrying about it. That unfortunately is his opinion and not something you will be able to shift. It will be pointless to try. But then again his whole thread is about pointlessnes so feel free to waste your time.

Daniel

The Russians/Soviets took air defence seriously, unlike their US counterparts. Every platoon in the Soviet Army had a gripstock and 3-4 missiles in their BMP. Equally these days the launcher is issued with what looks like a lap top computer that is linked in to the local air defence network. In addition to Tor and Tunguska units that number of Manpads would be quite effective on its own, but add the fact that they are both well trained and given information from the local PVO units would have made them very very effective. Obviously as they moved away from Soviet territory the radar coverage would have diminished but any cruise missiles would have to be launched from away from the front line and would have been seen as a threat just like all other air traffic going that way…

Yes I know the Russians/Soviets take the air defence seriously. Thats why I mentioned them as the archetype. I was responding to suggestions that a mass deployment of large numbers of MANPADS may be a equaliser for nations faced with a mass cruise missile strike. Admittedly I have now properly re-read the thread and see that the use of MANPADS was not being suugested in the absence of a more conventional IADS. I do seem to recall the idea presented as such elsewell as being potenitally useful for such candidates as Venezeula or Iran. If I recall in error then I apologise.

Anyway I’ll just reiterate my position. While I see the theorectial of supplementing a traditional IADS with large numbers of MANPADS I don’t think it is going to be viable for anyone, even the Russians or Chinese. In the absence of radars and longer range defences to protect them from medium/high altitude attack then the low level defences irrelevant but with them you already have an expensive system requiring highly trained personnel upon which it is proposed to add even further expense and manpower requirements. Even for the Russians I couldn’t see it being viable. Afterall, the systems you have mentioned belong to the field forces and intended to protect said field forces. Sure they might liase with the local PVO but the aim is be ready to defend themselves. It would be unusual to have your field forces deployed with in such proximity to propable cruise missile targets that the SHORADS could be effective. The alternative of stripping the field forces of thier organic AD assets is unlikely to be popularwith the troops or thier Generals. So to implement the MANPADS boosted IADS would require outlay for new systems.

Yes nations could just choose to stick MANPADS teams out in the field and hope the achive something. They might even achieve a shoot down or two and produce some good propaganda TV but they won’t be effective. Basically I think the situation is the only time we are going to see major cruise missile strikes will involve the US and there is no cheap and easy way to oppose the power of the US air forces and their full spectrum arsenal. I’d suggest the more efficient (but still expensive) deterent option of nuclear weapons 🙂

As always this is merely me pontificating on this about which I have no real evidence one way or the other.

Daniel