danrhYour biggest mistake here is that you imply NMD is designed to defend against a Russian attack. It isn’t. Then you outline this grand plan to defeat NMD when all that was ever said was that this manuevering RV isn’t going to have an effect on GBI (it isn’t). And what exactly would be the point of having conventional warheads in the last wave? You’ve already opened the nuclear genie so you’re screwed anyway. And the LAST thing you want to do is start a CONVENTIONAL war that targets NUCLEAR systems. A few flights of B-2s armed with penetrating JDAMs would make short work of the SS-18s and the Russian SSBNs would be sitting on the bottom before that.
I would agree that any discussion of NMD v Russian (or even Chinese) nuclear arsenal is rather pointless. The money involved in fielding just 10 interceptors has been phenomonal. Expanding such a system to the point where it is worthwhile considering its impact on a Russian strike would have to involve absolutely mind boggling numbers.
Re the conventional warheads thing sferrin I think if you read Garry’s posts properly then it fairly easy to see he is refering to old style non-maneauvering nuclear warheads. Conventional in the sense that they are old-hat non-radical.
Daniel
danrhI wouldn’t worry very much. The MiG-31 was largely unproven in the role of intercepting low flying cruise missiles. The MiG-31’s failure to secure a single post-Soviet export order indicates that even 3rd world rogue regimes view its capabilities with extreme skepticism.
From what I’ve seen, the MiG-31 is one of the most overestimated airplanes in history.
Well sure the MiG-31 and its systems are “unproven” just like pretty much all modern military gear is unproven. Even systems used conflicts like the Balkans or Iraq will be argued by some as unproven since those conflicts are unrepresentative of what would be experienced against a foe of the magnitude of Russia or China for instance (paper or real threat, take your pick).
Suggesting that the lack of export orders for MiG-31 proves its a failure is a bit of a stretch. The type is a very large, complex and specialized design. To be honest it offers little to potential customers that can’t be put into upgraded Flankers and the Flanker throws in multirole capability. This is why no one has bought not because it can’t do what it was designed for.
Daniel
danrhSea Fury would be up there…….UK..Austrailia…..Netherlands……..or Sea Hawk…UK..India…Netherlands. Sea Venom….UK…Austrailia…France..
RCN also operated Sea Furies. Without a doubt the most beutiful aircraft ever to grace the skies 🙂
Daniel
danrhGood Lord is there any thread that can’t become about the Rafale/Typhoon/JSF 🙂
Daniel
danrhThe system may be more relocatable than mobile. A facility able to host the system could be built in Okinawa.
Daniel
danrhThe Phasing out of the S-3 Viking – A good or bad thing?
At a time when the US Navy is phasing out its capable and effective carrier-based Lockheed S-3 Viking ASW aircraft. I find it very odd when one considers that since there are more navy’s today equipped with state of the art diesel-electric (SSK) submarines, and the on going development of nuclear-attack submarines (SSN) by more ambitious navy’s this seem very odd.
These state-of–the-art SSK & SSN’s also come with the latest advanced long-range submarine-launched anti-shipping missiles & torpedoes, which add another disadvantage to the helicopter-based ASW asset
For not even the latest SH-60B/F have the range, loitering time or reaction time to the stand-off threat, as that of the S-3 Viking.
Added to this is the US Navy’s phasing out of the ASROC ASW rocket from its surface ship inventory, without a replacement.
Has the US Navy already forgotten its hard earned lessons of WWII?What do you think?
Regards
Pioneer
S-3 hasn’t done ASW for a number of years now. They are used as tankers and utility aircraft.
Daniel
danrhSounds suss
Delivered this Summer. That’s the one that ends in a few weeks. That’s pretty damn quick
Oh I’m sure thats a mistake, these northerners can never come to grips with the world south of the equator 🙂
Daniel
danrhLooking at a weapon system for a Future Frigate for the Royal Navy around 2030. Common missile would mean half the research, procurement and through life costs and unfortunately everything comes down to money!
Your faced with the issue of a SAM that is hauling a warhead big enough to sink a ship or an SSM that can’t sink anything bigger than a speed boat. I suppose it could work if you’re talking about something like Standard or the larger Soviet SAMs but probably not for smaller point defence missiles.
Daniel
danrhDoes this mean that there will only be 8 examples of the FA.2 available for resale to India?
Could possibly be Navy trainers, T Mk4Ns and T Mk8s. Seems to have been 3 4Ns and 7 or more 8s delivered to the RN FAA over the years. Unable to find current status. While these aircraft are not strictly SEA Harriers such a mix up would be understandable. Such a buy could allow for more training for the Indians while thier FRS.51s are upgraded or could be used for evaluating the FA.2s prior to a larger purchase.
Daniel
danrhNice pic Glenn. Where is it? I thought Amberley, with the Cunnigham Highway in the background but that hill doesn’t look right so I don’t know. Those look like Magpie Geese so somewhere further north?
Daniel
danrhI said:
Yeah. Two USAF systems that were adopted by the USN and US Army respectively… because the systems they (USN and US Army) were developing for themselves were rediculously expensive and in practise weren’t much better. Mauler anyone? How about perhaps?
They were a band aid patch at the time… a temporary solution because of a believe in airpower (their own) made them think they didn’t need any better.
Still really don’t care what the US spends its money on.
Reinforces my point that the US army relies on USAF for air defence.
The USN seems to put the same trust in its airpower.
Misplaced?
I don’t care.Well good for them.
Sigh! Okay then this really has nothing to do with the original topic so I’ll leave it alone. Should have known better than to get involved. Its interesting that care/don’t care threshhold for Western systems seems to coincide almost exactly with the “winning”/”losing” threshhold of an argument.
Daniel
danrhRussian it is then even though the claim is that some six or eight
German firms are fighting tooth and nail for a piece of this cake and that
some of these competitors are said to be deeply involved in the AIP2 technologies and
in other R&Ds of this breed. Or so says my poor Babblefish anyhow.Also, and as I had said, the Gertz hadn’t sounded the alarm on this one yet
so not to worry. Additionally, I thought I had dared them put their money where their mouth
is exactly as they did with the Yuan therefore not affixing any makers here…However, the description, “The new type submarine of PLA Navy”, I believe
is in the English language and what BIG WORDS that is… But, can they back it up
again with substance exactly as they did that of the Lavi, the Thunder, the Yuan, the 093,
and the shock and awes of the 094, Z-10, and their Early Warning System?I mean I hate people who brags. And, to prove that they’re
beyond a doubt not bragging here, an arbitrator such as that of the
almighty Gertz is definitely needed and much valued here…I mean how realistic is it anyway that them there
:p cheap-toaster-oven-makers :p of a Chinese are capable of
something this groovy and this otta sight anyhow?Not very likely! RIGHT?
PS: My Babblefish tells me the second
paragraph states that this AIP is similar to or are
closely resembles that of Russia’s 677.Other Interests:
Smoke, logic, and
the variables to the carrier or
no carrier equation…http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/30/business/carrier.php
From the pages of CMF of course.
.
Um I’m really not quite sure what you’re saying here. The Sub pictured is defintely one of the artists impressions of the AMUR. I was only able to run the text that was not part of the image through babelfish and from what I read its talking about how German diesels are already employed by PLAN vessels including submarines and therefore the opportunity should be there for German AIP tech to also be transfered to China (for the right price of course). I certainly would not say it is impossible for the Chinese to attempting to incorporate AIP into their subs or to be working on indigenous programs. Of course that does not mean I buy into the “its bigger therefore it must have AIP” argument for the Yuans either. Diesel subs have been getting bigger over the years AIP or no AIP as navies try to extend their reach. The Australian Collins and Japanese SSKs are bigger than the Yuans but lack any AIP.
Daniel
danrhOK. I’ll spell it all out again just for you.
I stated something that you have found was an error. It was not important to my point unless the US Army has spent billions and introduced Tunguska, Tor, and Buk equivelents that no body knows about.
I was stating that the US Army was lax in its own air defence and described the Chapparal as an example of its laxness.
The fact that it is no longer used by the US army is relevant as its withdrawl has made their air defence is actually worse…
Well the US systems weren’t all that bad back in the 70s and 80s while the Soviet Union still existed as a threat. The US and NATO could afford to rely somewhat more on static systems such as HAWK and Patriot given that as they would be fighting a defensive war mobile systems were not as critical. Once the Soviets and the Pact collapsed where exactly was impetus for the US to spend money on a raft of Army SAMs? Folks are quite happy to criticize the US for spending huge amounts of money on things like the F-22A when there appears to be no great threat requiring it so what would be said if the US Army had invested many billions of dollars in the systems you suggest so that they could have taken them to fight the wars they have fought in the last decade and a half? Something along the lines of pork barreling, total waste of time and money, putting contractors ahead of the troops by buying high tech missiles instead of boots and bullet proof vests? Fact is that now as the potential of a greater standard of opposition to the US is developing then now they are spending more on newer systems such as vehicle mounted stinger/gun (eg Linebacker) and Surface Launched AMRAAM, MEADS, and the collection of directed energy AD systems.
No, you are right, there is nothing I would find more interesting than to waste a day or two chatting to you a American Naval air defence policy and threat assessment. NOT.
But you’re quite happy to infer the many ways in which Russian systems etc are superior or have cracked the Western one. You know it seems logical to me that to be able to suggest a superiority of one system over another one needs to have a faily well rounded understanding of both. Sound reasonable?
The only navy thing the USAF bought would be the F-4. Otherwise they might as well be from two different countries. Russian naval systems on the other hand, I can only think of one Naval SAM system not related to a land based system… the SA-N-3 Goa.
Hmm now I could of course be missing some subtle inference here but I think we might be mixing up the SA-3/SA-N-1 Goa and the SA-N-3 Goblet. Re the USAF/USN crossovers we could add the A-7, the EA-3/B-66, ALQ-99 (althought this systems EF-111A implementation is of course a prime example of what you are suggesting), EA-6B (which is of course now operated jointly since the demise of the EF-111A 🙂 ) among some others. Of course these systems are the excpetion to the general rule and you are quite right in saying that the US services don’t really like to play together and are forced to compete heavily against each other for the taxpayers dollar. Still its interesting that a remark about the Army buying a navy system illicts a response about the Air Force buying Navy instead?
Daniel
danrhChapparal???? Who the hell uses THAT? Or are you mistaking RAM for Chaparral? RAM has about as much in common with that as an SM-2 Block IIIB does with Tartar. As for Sea Sparrow maybe having problems at low altitude I’ve got videos of them using it to take out speedboats. If it can hit something ON the water it shouldn’t have a problem hitting something 5m above it. (Keep it mind it’s altitude we’re talking about not speed here). Franky with RAM’s demonstrated success rate against supersonic targets I think the only reason they keep RIM-7 around is to deal with things like speed boats and such. Why else have both systems on board?
Well actually the Taiwanese use the Sea Chapparal on some of their vessels. I assume Garry is mixing up the AIM-7 based RIM-7 Sea Sparrow with the AIM-9 based Chapparal. Re the retention of the Sea Sparrow on the US CVNs I assume its because the Sea Sparrow is better able to cope with legacy large, high flying AShMs that are still in Russian service and could find their way to other potential adversaries.
Daniel
danrhI also like the 737/777 combo. Yet, I don’t see the 737 replacing the KC-135’s. More than likely they would replace the KC-130 tankers on a tactical level……. :rolleyes: From a political point of view. I don’t see Airbus wiining…….Yet, its possible a large order of 777’s with a smaller order of Airbus (A330’s?) could be purchased as a compromise…………..not likely but possible! 😮
Yeah, possible, in the way its possible I could be crowned the next Miss Universe.
Daniel
Sign In
