TurbiniaIreland is guarded by the RAF in the same way that any threat to Austria would be a threat to Germany or Italy so neither country would stand by and see Austria bombed by a foreign power. And the point remains, any air threat to Austria would have to violate the airspace and defence systems of several other countries before reaching Austria. The UK wouldn’t help Ireland out of altruism or generosity, we’d help them as it is in the interests of UK security, much the same as whether there is a formal agreement or not Austria’s bigger neighbours have a vested interest in a secure Austria.
TurbiniaIf we just talk about aesthetics/appearance, I love the look of the U212, very attractive boats 🙂 The Israeli Dolphin class seem to be a very interesting design quite outside HDW’s other submarines, a mix of older design with some of the most up to date systems as fitted to the newer 212/214 types. What are the chances of Germany donating a few to the UK? 😀
TurbiniaNew Zealand and Ireland are not poor countries either and see no need to spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$’s on fast jets. Equally, there are very poor countries who do blow $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$’s on weapons that’d be better spent providing their people with health care, education, opportunities etc. This is not an argument over Austria’s economic position.
TurbiniaIn my eyes that does not excuse the first sentence. Look, if I say, *it is much better when 30 members of British infantry die rather than one Slovak soldier, because our press don’t give a damn about dead Britons* – does it sound like music to your ears? Admit it, if it was me who would write something like that, you would immediately retaliate in a fierce attack.
I’d say that was Slovak political/media reality, and no, I wouldn’t consider it offensive at all.
TurbiniaA human life is a human life, whatever their nationality. I would hope everybody here agrees with that. So when a Russian, or Iraqi, or Afghan, or Sudanese, or East Timorese or whatever dies the human tragedy is just the same as when a British, American, German, French, Chinese, Indian or whatever dies. However, in media and in politics people only really worry about the losses of their own people. In Iraq the number of British dead is comparatively light, yet British people are much more aware of the handful (by war standards) of British dead than the 10,000’s of dead Iraqi’s, which people just don’t pay much attention too. And this is not a British thing, it’s common to all countries. This means that whereas is a 100 foreign troops die in Iraq or Afghanistan the British media will show limited interest, if a couple of British troops die it’s lead story news. This means that politically, it is much easier for UK politicians to sell a campaign where losses may be foreign contractors than their own troops. I believe this is what TinWing is saying (and I’m sure he will correct me if I’m wrong), I’d agree that is a morally reprehensible approach but it’s also political reality. And it’s not just a UK attitude either. How much attention do Canadian or US or any other NATO losses in Afghanistan recieve in the UK media? How aware are people in Canada, the US or other NATO countries of UK troop losses? And how aware are any of us of losses to Afghan peasants and government forces? I believe this is basically TinWings point. Not xenophobia or racism, just pointing out how politicians and the media work.
TurbiniaL159 would also be an excellent choice, as would the Korean T50. Any of the lightweight multi-role fighters derived from trainers would be a sound choice IMO.
TurbiniaGreat to see Northrop Grumman still in the business of USN aviation, even if now it’s the carriers rather than the aircraft that they’re building 🙂
TurbiniaDefinitely true. A well operated 209 with a clever skipper could easily get the drop on a poorly handled Oyashio. In SSK to SSK terms the maintenance of the vessel and the skill of the crew make up almost as large a percentage of the capability of the boat as its systems. That said though a maintenance-friendly design, good low-discretion and high submerged-endurance figures can level off a mediocre crew with a superior crew in a less advanced boat!.
Very true, crew standards, training and maintenance are critical even in these fancy digital times 🙂 A lot of it is a question of money, a lot of navies can afford to buy this type of equipment but then can’t afford to operate it with the result their boats/ships/jet aircraft hardly ever leave home and do realistic training ops to develop crew efficiency and tactics. All a question of degree really.
The other ace that seems to be only rarely mentioned here is political will. These are high value assets and active use involves a high risk of loss. Some forces seem reluctant to risk such equipment with the result it is totally pointless to have it in the first place other than for national vanity. As the RN said in 1982 destroyers/frigates can be replaced and if you’re scared of losing them then you may as well not bother, they may have lost a few ships but they got the job done. Argentina by contrast was loathe to risk their fleet after the loss of the Belgrano with the result their fleet, which could have caused heavy losses to the British if used aggressively, played very little part in the war.
TurbiniaIf I was the Austrian government I’d buy a squadron of Hawk 100 LIFT or similar, along with sidewinder AAM and a basic air to ground capability to maintain a cadre of fast jet pilots and have a basic air intercept capability in case of potential civil emergencies (airliner hi-jacks etc.) and to support their ground forces and give them training in air-ground co-operation and potential close support if needed. A lot cheaper than the EF Typhoon and given the threat profile it’d be more than adequate. Then I’d review potential threats and the neutrality policy each year or so and if neccessary upgrade the AF when required later.
TurbiniaThe question isn’t whether the EF Typhoon is a good fighter, it is. The question is whether Austria needs such a capable fighter. Some argue yes, some (me included) argue no, but it’s a legitimate and fair debate to have, without in any way criticising the actual aircraft which is indeed a very capable machine.
TurbiniaYeah, I dunno why South Korea even needs an army, I mean it’s not like North Korea has ever tried to invade them or anything, oh hang on, wait a minute, some mistake there :diablo: :p
TurbiniaRight up to the mid-90’s 4000TEU was big, then things just took off. Between the mid 70’s to the mid 90’s container ships held steady at about 3000-4000TEU, and when USL made those big 4,500TEU boats for their round the world service in the mid 80’s they were a flop as they were too slow and they couldn’t afford enough hulls (in the end Sealand actually shrank them by removing a mid body section). One reason was the Panamax issue, until the early 90’s Panamax was considered essential by most box boat owners (even though most of them never even went through the canal) then the efficiency advantages of post-panamax and heavy investment by terminals in longer reach cranes led to a huge expansion of TEU capacity on ships, 5000 to 6000 and more.
TurbiniaIn some respects Flo-Flo barge carriers could make excellent and cheap auxilliary LPD’s, although there aren’t many around as concepts like LASH and BACAT (I know some of these systems are not actually flo-flo, but they could still make useful auxilliary assault vessels) aren’t popular for trans-oceanic transport, it’s probably no coincidence that the greatest advocates of the barge carrier concept was the USSR.
The good thing about container vessels is that their hull structural rigidity comes from relatively small components, to maximise cargo hold volume, hatch cover openings etc. they rely on longitudinal box girders for hull strengh, cutting a hole in the hull for a flo-flo hatch would be no different to the massive hatch openings in terms of hull strengh. That said, the sort of conversion advocated would be horrifically expensive and it’d probably be cheaper to build a new build purpose designed vessel. In Maersk the MSC conversion of the “L” class container vessels for the US DoD was something of a standing joke as the costs of conversion were something like four times the cost of a brand new container vessel of similar size.
TurbiniaThis is a short term measure, in the longer term the RAF needs more Chinooks or EH101’s, possibly a combination of both. The EH101 has been gaining ground steadily lately, the original RAF batch of Merlin HC3’s was quite a political buy to help Agusta-Westland but now the RAF are pretty enthusiastic about the type.
TurbiniaSubmarines are probably the most dificult of all naval vessels to really make a comparative judgement of, as of all naval ops they’re probably the most closely guarded with high security provision and deliberate disinformation being much harder to recognise than for most other systems. Pretty easy to maintain high security around them as they’re the original stealth weapons 🙂 All navies have their own little tricks and special operating procedures for these boats, and their equipment, sensor suites etc. are all individually tailored by their owning navies, there is no such thing as a standard design despite the general lumping together of boats as U212, U214, Scorpene or whatever. There are also real differences in build quality, materials etc. which are not really in the public domain unless you are connected with one of the great submarine houses like HDW or DCN. They also require a lot of skill and advanced tactical doctrine to operate to anything like their full potential. All of which is a long winded way of saying that to make a snap judgement over which is the best SSK in the world is a very dificult question to answer, and one for which there may be no true answer anyway, ultimately no navy in the world would relish going up against a well operated U212, Collins, Gotland, Oyashio, Scorpene or whatever.
Sign In
