Turbiniathere’s also christians who can be bigots to jews and not support israel
and christians who love jews and aren’t a bigot to israel. If have to, I can go dig some random politician to prove it, and bring you some cheese while I’m at it 🙂
I get infuriated by the way many link criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. You can be highly critical of Israel and not be anti-semitic at all. I know plenty of Jews who are fiercely critical of Israel.
TurbiniaSo what if China used Israeli and Russian help for the J10? They needed help, they got help, it’s a lot better taking foreign help and getting a fighter in the air than wallowing about looking at plastic models while they try and figure out what to do next. And to Russian’s making an issue of it, why see this as an opportunity to have a bit of China bashing when the USSR (along with the other victorious allies) stole shed loads of German technology after WW2 to massively accelerate technological development in their own country, not to mention spying activities. Or is using foreign technology OK as long as it isn’t China?:rolleyes:
TurbiniaThe MOWAG/General Dynamics Piranha V platform with a UK mission outfit, very similar in concept to the US Army Stryker (Piranha III with US mission outfit). In this case the UK has been sensible, rather than re-invent the wheel they’ve bought in the basic platform and will fit the bits they want onto it. On manufacture, it’s undecided AFAIK but under the DIS the FRES program has to be guaranteed full tech access and it’ll be handled by UK based companies (although those may be UK based subsidiaries of foreign companies like General Dynamics), BAe are bidding for the vehicle manufacture.
TurbiniaThe MOWAG/General Dynamics Piranha V platform with a UK mission outfit, very similar in concept to the US Army Stryker (Piranha III with US mission outfit). In this case the UK has been sensible, rather than re-invent the wheel they’ve bought in the basic platform and will fit the bits they want onto it. On manufacture, it’s undecided AFAIK but under the DIS the FRES program has to be guaranteed full tech access and it’ll be handled by UK based companies (although those may be UK based subsidiaries of foreign companies like General Dynamics), BAe are bidding for the vehicle manufacture.
TurbiniaAnd what are NATO jets doing in Baltic?. Baltic countries are soverign countries but it does not mean they create military structures from outside. the same is true for entire Eastern Europe( Eastern EU does not have coast to Atlantic). No new military structures after end of previous Coldwar (1991). Russia-China resolved border conflict in 90s on basis that military should be far away from borders and they havent violated. Now Russia intendes to apply the same formula to all its neighbors and that will include redrawing of borders for alot of countries. so choice is either go back to what was pre-1991 or much wider scale coldwar.
What, you start off by saying the Baltic states are sovereign but then say they’re not allowed to defend themselves and finish off by telling them if they don’t redraw their borders there’ll be a war? Nice argument there, what I’d have expected:rolleyes:
TurbiniaThe CdG is maturing into a fine ship but it’s been a long and hard road and shows the danger of trying to do a CVN on the cheap with inadequate resources. On the SLEP problem, that’s not a problem IMO, you could argue that a navy will always need one more ship to cover refits and maintenance, to be honest I don’t even see the CdG as that critical to actual French defence and if they want her for expeditionary warfare it’s unlikely that her maintenance periods will be the major factor in policy.
TurbiniaThese are essentially large OPV’s/gunboats, clearly they’re way behind the curve of advanced types building elsewhere or for China itself, equally for the needs of Pakistan they’re perfectly adequate and give them new build ships up to the job of counter-terrorism and counter-narco and policing duties as well as bulking up their fleet at an affordable price. Let’s face it, the T21 was a mediocre type little more than a glorified OPV/gunboat.
TurbiniaThere was a very good reason why the nomenclature for the Harrier changed from V/STOL to STOVL a few years ago, yes it can jump take off and hover, and yes the facility is genuinely useful, but it has a hellish high fuel burn, restricts payload and in practice ski jump assisted take off is so vastly superior it has essentially rendered the iconic jump jet status little more than a good party trick for public displays and stuff. Also as Jonesy says, it’s not just about this, it’s the fuel and weapons storage, maintenance facilities, crew facilities, control facilities etc, even on the big LHD’s (USN excepted) it is either/or, not both, so they can function as effective CVL’s or function as effective LPH/D’s, but not both together without seriously undermining both roles to the point of rendering the idea a bit pointless.
TurbiniaTo clarify, the EU is not a military alliance, many EU member states see NATO as the bed rock of their security whilst some EU members are neutral with others wanting the EU to become a replacement for NATO.
TurbiniaUk has 2 aircraft carriers in service, but the RN has no more aircrafts.
But has, what, 4 operational Harrier squadrons plus an OCU available for war service in emergency in Joint Force Harrier. What Harrier squadrons are available for the two Italian carriers? I’m sure the British Army and their allies fighting in Afghanistan are devastated that UK Harriers are maintaining a close air support mission rather than looking pretty in Portsmouth harbour or flag waving cruises around Europe:rolleyes:
TurbiniaIn all seriousness, I suspect both Horizon and Type 45 would be a better basic platform for the RAN, the problem being as you point out that PAAMS, good as it is rated, isn’t exactly common with any other navy within half a planets distance of Australia. Does make me wonder if the UK, France or Italy could integrate Aegis onto the hull though…although then the Gibbs & Cox design would be lower cost/risk in almost all certainty making a hybrid T45/Horizon-Aegis pointless.
TurbiniaRange is just one of many critical aspects of warship design not immediately obvious to many, the others include stability reserve, structural strength, damage control capabilities, levels of redundancy, room for growth and critical failure modes, even the sea and air temperatures designed for. All of these are absolutely critical and will be specific to the customer. The Norwegian Navy probably isn’t worried about the affects of high air temperatures on it’s GT’s and needing high capacity sea water coolers, the UAE Navy probably isn’t worried about de-icing equipment on coolers and air handling units and adequate stability and structural strength to operate in the Barents Sea in Winter. All of which is why a ship perfectly good for one Navy may be a waste of time for another despite it’s sensors and weapons looking perfect. In the RAN case, good stability & structural strength and good endurance would seem vital, and good sea keeping, which the F100 has something of a reputation problem with regard to.
TurbiniaWhat exactly is “european endurance” ? It is not like the (North) Atlantic is exactly a puddle. Besides, many European nations have defence responsibilities on the other side of the globe due to former colonies etc. I’m not sure I get the point here so please enlighten me.
And the RN, one of the European navies with global responsibilities designed their Type 45 with a 7000nm endurance at 18kts, 2000nm above the RAN vessels despite the RAN having a vast area of operations. The French have tended to go for long range where they can too, these are the only two European navies with genuine global responsibilities, other Euro navies go for shorter legged vessels for the european theatre of ops, and even the North Atlantic is nothing like the area of the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
TurbiniaDepends on how you define Australia designing it’s own ships. If you mean start from scratch and design everything then clearly it’d be a high cost/high risk option (although possibly it’d pay off longer term in industrial terms). If however you mean Australia using off the shelf products from the international parts bin and doing the basic platform design in the same way Denmark is doing, or even Spain has done with the F100 (although even there the basic platform grew out of a tri-nation program) then an Australian destroyer would be very feasible. Australia wanted Aegis for interoperability with the USN, they could have incorporated SPY/Aegis/Mk.41 VLS (the highest risk/cost part of the design) with a propulsion system from GE or RR and auxilliary systems from established suppliers and done it very competently IMO. Denmark have done it with Absalon on a simpler type vessel and produced a unique vessel specific to their own requirements and are now making their own air warfare destroyers, Spain did the F100 by using the international parts bin, I’m sure Australia could also do it. The driver for buying F100 was cost and Aegis, the RAN wanted Aegis and the F100 was cheaper than the alternative, but IMO if the G&C design was too expensive I think Australia made a mistake in allowing the combat system dictate vessel choice when the alternative air warfare systems are every bit as good and would have opened up a wider selection of basic platforms, some of which may have been better suited to the RAN.
TurbiniaThe F100 was designed for European endurance and operational areas which tend to be much shorter legged than the Pacific area, it would be far better for the RAN to have greater endurance and greater growth potential but unfortunately that’d entail big changes to the basic platform design with serious implications on cost, which would then beg the question of why they’d bought this instead of the Gibbs & Cox design which it seems the RAN really wanted. I think in time this selection process will be considered a mistake (it’s obvious many in the RAN thought that from day one) but who am I to judge:)
Sign In
