dark light

sealordlawrence

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 5,730 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Post DDG-51 tribulations. #2045172
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Just because you call something a destroyer does not make it so. Fact. Now unless you have some 3rd party source that lists exactly what a cruiser hull is is there a point to this?

    The last USN ship built on a cruiser hull was Long Beach……..no need to get upset about it. My point has always been that it is largely irrelevent anyway.

    in reply to: Post DDG-51 tribulations. #2045176
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    11,666 tons and 586 feet long is not a destroyer hull. Certainly not when you consider the 7800 ton Leahys were also classified as cruisers.

    It is a destroyer hull. Fact. As posted above the last vessel in the US built on cruiser hull was USS Long Beach.

    Just because you call something a cruiser it does not make it so.

    in reply to: Post DDG-51 tribulations. #2045180
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    I think both of you have some excellent points here. The Zumwalts simply do not make economic sense today however there definitely needs to be some consideration as to what can replace the Ticonderoga’s.

    Could a stretched Burke to the job?

    The Zumwalts never made sense which is why the USN has been so untroubled by its virtual axing of the project.

    in reply to: Post DDG-51 tribulations. #2045187
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    The Virginia class wasn’t exactly tiny.

    Still built on a Destroyer hull and their full load was not that far above a Tico.

    in reply to: Post DDG-51 tribulations. #2045196
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Couldn’t you say that the last US built cruiser was the USS Long Beach? she was the last one built on a proper Cruiser hull form anyway. 😉

    Exactly my point, ever since they have been nothing more than large destroyers.

    in reply to: Post DDG-51 tribulations. #2045241
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Another thought, why not take the Gibb’s and cox work from their effort at the Australian requirement, scale it up to somewhere between DDG-51 and Tico size and then combine it with the CODLOG propulsion architecture (obviously suitably modified for the DDG application) from the LHD-8. Or use the hull design from the KDX-3 but again with propulsion changes?

    If they really want to stick out how about a DDG1000 hull and machinery plant fitted out with Aegis and Mk41?

    Whatever the cruiser concept should be abandoned, and before anybody gets started on the Ticos, they are not cruisers they are large destroyers and there is no need to replace them with anything more than destroyers.

    The whole USN CG-X saga is worryingly reminiscent of RN attempts to build new cruisers after WW2 and we all know where that ended. The USN has not built a proper cruiser for decades and they should not start now.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world #2464634
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    This thread is for general news. Take your infantile sniping elsewhere…perhaps to PM’s.

    Pot/kettle/black.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world #2464688
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Don’t see anybody making a big deal of it except lawrence. It’s a normal informative article and his childhood complexes with everything that even remotely touches Iran, Russia or green little men is pretty much getting on my nerves.

    Sounds like you need to relax.:D:rolleyes:

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world #2465499
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Still wonder what your point is…

    Wonder away.

    in reply to: P-800 Yakhont vs P-900 (supersonic) Klub #1820941
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Yep dont get much more of a high contrast RF target than a nice big flat plate stuck out at right angles from an equally flat surface!.

    It is impressive to see that BrahMos can knock down a fairly sizeable wall in the middle of an open desert. I’m assuming that the resistance from the Indian Army is something to do with the fact that they dont expect to have to hit too many lone brick walls in the middle of open deserts – at least not from 300km standoff?. :rolleyes:

    Sounds like the Indian Army has a pretty good grip on things to me!

    Excellent analysis. Frankly Brahmos has not displayed any capability that Iraqi exocets didnt show in the Iran/Iraq war. Find something big that sticks out from flat terrain and hope for the best.

    Brahmos is impressive as an AShM, but even there one has to wonder what real advantages it has over the Kongsberg NSM and Rbs-15 Mk3.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world #2465553
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    :confused: What’s your point? Noone is allowed to use fuzes because you said so?

    Where does my post suggest that for a second?:rolleyes:

    in reply to: The 100ft sonar? #2045438
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    I dont have a picture of the Matapan but I do have one of her predecessor H.M.S. Verulam. She was attached to the 2nd frigate Squadron at Portland and conducted trials for sonar. This was damaged on one occasion when entering dry dock when they ‘forgot’ to retract the dome![ATTACH]169096[/ATTACH]

    Thanks for the response Ollie, its stories like that one that remind us we are all human!

    in reply to: IAF – News & Discussion – II #2466050
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Think like a warfighter who needs to make the airplane battleworthy as quickly as possible. I think you don’t need the IRST ball if you have a SniperXR pod serving the same function. IRSTs have lousy reliability, with MTBF of maybe 600-800 hours. If the IRST ball breaks, it will take several hours to gain access, replace the IRST, close access and run checkout. That airplane scrubs the mission because of maintenance. If the SniperXR pod fails, it can be replaced in 20 minutes with a pod that has already been checked good. The airplane can still make its allotted takeoff time slot.

    Wartime effectiveness is about generating as many sorties as necessary to achieve victory. You cannot generate sorties if your airplanes are down for maintenance.

    Lockheed Martin has been marketing a podded version of the IRST used by the F-15SG for use on F-16s.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News from around the world #2466053
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Iran’s New Air Defense System Shields 55,000 Feet

    TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran’s new air defense system can strike targets as far as 55,000 feet, Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar announced here on Saturday.

    “This hi-tech system is able to target airplanes and other aggressive aircrafts at an altitude of 55,000 feet (about 18 kilometer)”, Najjar said during the inauguration ceremony of a 100mm air defense system.

    The minister underlined the home-grown technology for manufacturing the system and its ammunition, saying that it can intercept any kind of enemy fighters, helicopters and even cruise missiles.

    “We have used hi-tech technology in the system including detection radars and target interceptors which are all made by our country’s experts,” he reiterated.

    “One of the most important features of this weapon is its smart system which can track down the target and fire at it automatically,” Najjar added.

    The General pointed out that the shells used in the system are equipped with a fuse which enables them to explode and terminate the target from a close distance even if they fail to hit it directly.

    “In addition to these radars, the new air defense system has a central unit for flak control and central unit for information coordination which are designed and made by defense ministry specialists,” Iranian defense minister added.

    Noting that the system has an important effect on Iranian defense capabilities, Najjar announced that tens of more important defense projects are due to be inaugurated during the ceremonies to mark the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution (from January 31 to February 9).

    Tehran launched an arms development program during the 1980-88 Iraqi imposed war on Iran, to compensate for a US weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and fighter planes.

    Yet, Iranian officials have always stressed that the country’s military and arms programs serve defensive purposes and should not be perceived as a threat to any other country.

    http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8711122088

    HAHAHAHAHA! And the genius Iranians have created the anti-aircraft gun and proximity fuzes………I bet the Great Satan wishes he had come out with that first!:D:D:D

    in reply to: The 100ft sonar? #2045452
    sealordlawrence
    Participant

    Excellent reply, thank you very much Jonesey!

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 5,730 total)